255 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-37420-2026 DECIDED ON: 16.07.2026 MANMEET KAUR .....PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB .....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH. Present: Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Gursher Singh Dhillon, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab. Mr. GBS Dhillon, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Jagdeep Singh Bajwa, Advocate, for the complainant. SANJAY VASHISTH , J (ORAL) 1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking grant of regular bail, in case, FIR No.298 dated 17.12.2023 Sections 406, 420, 506, 120-B, 467, 468, 472 of IPC, (corresponding to Sections 316 (2), 318 (4), 351 (2) (3), 61 (2), 338, 336 (3), 341 (1) of BNS, 2023) and Section 82 of the Registration Act, registered at Police Station Sahnewal, District Ludhiana. 2. Mr. Jagdeep Singh Bajwa, Advocate, puts in appearance on behalf of the complainant, and files his vakalatnama in Court today, which is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Office to tag the same at appropriate place in case file. LAVISHA 2026.07.16 18:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRM-M-37420-2026 -2- 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that, as per the final investigation report (Annexure P-4), it has been concluded that a cheque amount of Rs.1.25 crores was credited into the joint bank account of the petitioner and her husband-Jai Inderpal Singh, who is the main accused in the present case. It is further recorded that an additional amount of Rs.1.35 crore was also received in the said account. 4. Learned Senior Counsel contends that, although petitioner is a Director of the company, but she is neither a signatory to the documents pertaining to the disputed transactions, nor there is any material to indicate her direct involvement in the alleged fraud. It is argued that petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in the present case, merely because she is the wife of the principal accused. It is further submitted that mere transfer of the alleged amount into the joint bank account of the petitioner and her husband, by itself, cannot lead to an inference that petitioner had knowledge of or participated in the alleged fraudulent acts committed against the complainant. 5. Having considered the period of custody undergone by the petitioner, nature of the allegations, magnitude of the alleged fraud, and the loss stated to have been suffered by the complainant, this Court is of the view that ends of justice would not be served by granting regular bail to the petitioner, at this stage. 6. However, balancing the competing considerations, present petition is disposed of, with the observation that petitioner shall be at liberty to move appropriate application for regular bail, after undergoing LAVISHA 2026.07.16 18:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRM-M-37420-2026 -3- a further period of approximately three months in custody. It is further observed that any subsequent application for regular bail shall be considered on its own merits, including any material showing that complainant has been compensated, either partially or fully, towards the alleged defrauded amount. (SANJAY VASHISTH) 16.07.2026 JUDGE Lavisha Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No LAVISHA 2026.07.16 18:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh