CRM-M-17900- IN THE H (108) VANDANA CHIB STATE OF PUNJ CORAM: HON Present: Mr. V Mr. U Ms. R Mr. G Mr. S MANISHA BATR 1. The Section 482 of Bh for grant of anticip registered under S Point, District Poli 2. The a complaint submitt Data Centres, on -2026 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH CHIB Versus PUNJAB HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS Mr. Vaibhav Sehgal, Advocate and Mr. Umesh, Advocate for the petition Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Sr. DAG, Pu Mr. Gautam Dutt, Senior Advocate w Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Advocate for th **** BATRA, J. (ORAL) The instant petition has been prefe of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanh anticipatory bail in case arising out o nder Sections 406, 420 and 120B of Police Commissionerate, Ludhiana The aforementioned FIR was registe ubmitted by the complainant Deep B on the allegations that M/s. JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH CRM-M-17900-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 02.04.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondent ANISHA BATRA etitioner G, Punjab cate with for the complainant preferred by the petitioner under a Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) out of FIR No.85 dated 21.05.2025 20B of IPC at Police Station Focal hiana. registered on the basis of a written eep Bansal, partner of M/s. Fortune M/s. Vuewnow Infratech Limited M) 2026 oner dent nder SS”) 2025 ocal tten rtune ited AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-17900- (hereinafter to be r present petitioner the complaint are the accused compa had taken place responsible for da alleged that he wa centre. The petiti they were engag managing data ce owners. An agre company. As per guarantee of minim complainant. The for the period til incurred huge exp maintaining books sum of Rs.6,17,5 complainant. To accused in conn Rs.6,14,11,200/- Managing Directo 19.02.2025. The criminal cases had -2026 (O&M) 2 to be referred as “company”) was a pr er is one of the Directors of the sam nt are the Managing Director, Directo company. All of them were actively i place between the complainant and for day-to-day act and conduct of the he was desirous of designing, building petitioner and the co-accused approa engaged in the business of design ata centres and are providing serv n agreement was executed between s per the terms of the agreement, the f minimum revenue target in the sum o t. The company was also liable to pay iod till the commissioning of the da ge expenses for commissioning of t books of accounts in due course of b .6,17,53,499.99/- was due and pay o discharge the liability of the co connivance each other issued a - under the signatures of accus irector of the company. The said The complainant made inquiries an es had been registered against the com as a private limited company and the the same and other persons named in irectors and Company Secretary of tively involved in transactions which t and their company and are also of the company. The complainant uilding and commissioning of a data approached him by representing that designing, building, operating and services to potential data centre ween the complainant firm and the nt, the accused company provided a sum of Rs.65 lakhs per month to the to pay electricity and water charges the data centre. The complainant g of the data centre. It has been se of business. As on 14.02.2025, a d payable by the accused to the the company, the petitioner and co- ued a cheque for the sum of accused Rahul Bhargava, who is e said cheque was dishonoured on ries and came to know that several he company, its Directors as well as d the ed in ry of hich also inant data that and entre the ed a o the arges inant been 25, a the - of o is d on veral ll as AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-17900- against the sister even proceedings them and he also c the petitioner and expenses for comm revenue from the complainant had b prayer was made f 3. After initiated and are u Company, while a arrest bail which Sessions Judge, Lu 4. It is a falsely implicated contractual in natu breach of contract Sections 406 and under Section 138 been passed in th allegations. The p has no control ove has no role to pla -2026 (O&M) 3 sister concerns/associates companies dings by Enforcement Directorate h also came to know that he was dishon er and the co-accused to enter into r commissioning of data centre withou m the sales accruing to the compla t had been cheated at the hands of the c made for taking action. After registration of FIR, investiga are underway. The petitioner who hile apprehending her arrest, moved a which has been dismissed by the C ge, Ludhiana vide order dated 17.02.2 It is argued by learned counsel for th licated in this case. The dispute be in nature for which the remedy is to i ntractual obligation does not make out 6 and 420 of IPC. The complainan on 138 of Negotiable Instruments A in that complaint. This FIR has The petitioner is a dormant Director rol over day-to-day functioning and m to play any financial decision. She anies of the accused company and rate had also been initiated against dishonestly induced and deceived by r into an agreement and incur hug without having any bona fide to pay complainant. By alleging that the f the company and its Directors etc., vestigation proceedings have been r who is one of the Directors of the oved an application for grant of pre- the Court of Learned Additional 7.02.2026. l for the petitioner that she has been ute between the parties is basically is to initiate civil proceedings. The ke out any offence punishable under lainant has already filed complaint ents Act and summoning order has R has been registered on the same rector of the accused company. She and management of the same. She . She was not the signatory to the and ainst d by hug pay t the etc., been f the - ional been cally The nder laint r has same She She the AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-17900- agreement which w ready to join inve recovery is to be deserves to be allo 5. Notic 6. Learn filed reply. Mem filed. It is argued the complainant h in nature. She is t for day-to-day co outstanding agains been duped of an petitioner on being accused failed to contractual agreem very beginning. F her custodial inte against the petitio joining investigat accused Rahul Bh even have been -2026 (O&M) 4 hich was signed by the Managing Dir in investigation. Her custodial inter to be effected from her. It is, there be allowed. Notice of motion. Learned State counsel has advance Memo of appearance on behalf of t ued by learned State counsel alongw nant has argued that the allegations ag he is the active Director of the accuse ay conduct of the same. An amoun against the company as on 14.02.2025 of an amount of Rs.14,54,99,000/- n being induced to set up a data centr ed to operate in terms of the agreeme agreement of the company with disho ing. For conducting thorough and pro l interrogation is required. The arre petitioner and the co-accused as they estigation even despite several notic ul Bhargava and Manjushah Rahul Bh een extended the benefit of bail. No ing Director Rahul Bhargava. She is l interrogation is not required. No , therefore, argued that the petition ance notice of the petition and has lf of the complainant has also been alongwith learned Senior counsel for ons against the petitioner are serious accused company and is responsible amount of Rs.6,17,53,499.99/- was 2.2025. In fact, the complainant has - by the accused including the centre which the petitioner and co- reement. They did not obligate the h dishonest intention since from the nd proper investigation in the matter, he arrest warrants have been issued s they have not been appearing for notices issued to them. The co- hul Bhargava have been arrested and il. No exceptional or extra-ordinary he is No tition has been l for rious sible was t has the - e the the atter, sued g for - and inary AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-17900- circumstance for g is, therefore, argue 7. This C for the parties at co 8. The p allegations, the ac Rs. 14,54,99,000/ and not dischargi instant case is sho on documentary e before the Trial C the accused compa accused company Instruments Act a allegations of co evidence in this ca not? Taking into and the circumsta opinion that no ca well settled propos of post-conviction finds that the peti bail. Accordingl -2026 (O&M) 5 e for granting benefit of bail to the pe , argued that the petition does not dese This Court has heard the rival submis es at considerable length. The petitioner is the Director of the the accused company had duped the ,000/- by entering into an agreement w charging the contractual obligations. is shown to have arisen out of a civil tary evidence. It is only on the basi rial Court that the petitioner was invo company or not? With regard to dish pany, separate proceedings under S Act are pending. Though an FIR can committing offence of cheating, this case as to whether the ingredient g into consideration the allegations as cumstances peculiar to this case, thi case for pre-trial incarceration of t proposition of law that pre-trial incarc viction sentencing. As per the discu e petitioner has made out a case for e rdingly, the petition is allowed subj the petitioner has been made out. It t deserve to be allowed. ubmissions made by learned counsel f the accused company. As per the ed the complainant of an amount of ment with the complainant company ations. Ex-facie the dispute in the civil transaction. The case is based e basis of evidence to be produced s involved in day-to-day business of o dishonor of a cheque issued by the nder Section 138 of the Negotiable IR can nonetheless be lodged on the eating, however, it is a matter of edients of the same are made out or ons as levelled against the petitioner se, this Court is of the considered on of the petitioner is made out. It is incarceration should not be a replica discussion made above, this Court for extending benefit of pre-arrest d subject to the condition that the t. It unsel r the nt of pany the ased uced ss of y the iable n the r of ut or ioner ered It is plica ourt rrest t the AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-17900- petitioner shall s within a period of period and also su personal as well as Officer. She will a extend threats to a case, will not leav after seeking perm Aadhar Card No. also abide by all t BNSS. 9. It is m the purpose of dec on the merits of th 10. Since any, is rendered in 02.04.2026 Amit Sharma -2026 (O&M) 6 hall surrender before the Investigat riod of 15 days from today and shall lso subsequently, as and when require well as surety bonds to the satisfaction will also not tamper with any eviden ts to any witness acquainted with the t leave the country, during investigati g permission from the trial Court, sh d No. and cellphone number to the I y all the terms and conditions as envi It is made clear that any observation of deciding the present petition and t s of the case. Since the main petition has been all ered infructuous. (MA Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes Whether reportable:- Yes/No estigating Officer/Arresting Officer shall join investigation within that equired and subject to her furnishing faction of the Investigating/Arresting vidence, will not pressurize, induce, th the facts and circumstances of the stigation and trial of the case, except urt, shall disclose the details of her the Investigating Officer and shall s envisaged under Section 482(2) of vation made hereinabove is only for and the same shall have no bearing allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No ficer that hing sting duce, f the cept f her shall 2) of y for aring n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.02 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.