Hardeep Kaur vs State Of Punjab

CRM-M-47567-2026 (O&M) -:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
( 102 )
CRM-36640-2026 in/AND
CRM-M-47567-2026
Date of Decision: 07.09.2026
HARDEEP KAUR
… Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
... Respondent
-.-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL
Present:- Mr. Shubham Bhardwaj, Advocate and
Mr. Vibhor Rana, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG, Punjab.
-.-
VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)
CRM-36640-2026
1. Application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023
(corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C.), seeking recall of the order dated
25.08.2026 (Annexure A-1) and restoration of the main case to its original
number, on the ground that the learned counsel for the petitioner did not
receive the requisite intimation regarding the listing of the case.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.
The order dated 25.08.2026 is accordingly recalled and the main case is
restored to its original number and position.
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.08 10:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-47567-2026 (O&M) -:2:-
Main Case
1. The present is the first petition under Section 482 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 438
Cr.P.C.), seeking the extraordinary discretionary relief of anticipatory bail
to the petitioner in FIR No.121 dated 15.07.2026, registered under
Sections 316(4) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
(corresponding to Sections 408 and 120-B IPC), at Police Station City
Sunam, District Sangrur (Annexure P-2).
2. The brief factual matrix of the case is that the FIR emanates
from an alleged financial discrepancy in the affairs of Muthoot Mercantile
Ltd., Sunam Branch, whereby an amount of 12,60,000/- is alleged to
₹
have remained unaccounted for and not been deposited in the Company’s
designated bank account. The prosecution case essentially rests upon
reconciliation of the Company’s internal records with the corresponding
banking transactions.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated in the alleged shortage/misappropriation of
₹ 12,60,000/- pertaining to the period December 2025 to February 2026,
during which she was serving as Branch Manager, Muthoot Mercantile
Ltd., Sunam Branch. It is contended that the prosecution case is
predominantly documentary, resting upon ledgers, cash registers, bank
records, vouchers and reconciliation statements, all of which are already
available with the complainant-Company and the investigating agency.
3.1. It is further submitted that no specific amount or overt act of
dishonest receipt, retention, conversion or misappropriation is attributed to
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.08 10:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-47567-2026 (O&M) -:3:-
the petitioner and that several disputed transactions are, as per the
preliminary inquiry, attributable to co-accused Gurpreet Singh, Customer
Service Executive. The petitioner had already joined investigation,
undertakes to cooperate, and no recovery remains to be effected from her.
Mere supervisory designation, it is urged, cannot, by itself, justify
custodial interrogation. Learned counsel accordingly prays for grant of
anticipatory bail.
4. Notice of motion.
5. Upon advance notice, Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, learned DAG,
Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and vehemently
opposes the petition. While relying upon the reasoning contained in the
impugned order, learned State counsel submits that, having regard to the
nature and gravity of the allegations, the petitioner does not deserve the
extraordinary protection of pre-arrest bail. Dismissal of the present petition
is accordingly prayed for.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having
perused the record, this Court finds that the allegations against the
petitioner are of a serious nature. The petitioner was serving as Branch
Manager of Muthoot Mercantile Ltd., Sunam Branch and, in such capacity,
was responsible for the day-to-day functioning of the branch, including
supervision of its financial transactions and maintenance of accounts. The
prosecution alleges that the petitioner and co-accused Gurpreet Singh were
employees entrusted with responsibilities concerning collection and
deposit of cash and that, during the relevant period, a substantial amount
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.08 10:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-47567-2026 (O&M) -:4:-
of 12,60,000/- remained unaccounted for and was allegedly
₹
misappropriated.
6.1. The submission that the petitioner’s role was merely
supervisory and that she did not personally handle the cash does not, at
this stage, constitute a sufficient ground to dispense with custodial
interrogation. The allegation concerns a substantial financial irregularity
extending over a period of time in a branch where the petitioner was
occupying the position of Branch Manager. The precise manner in which
the alleged shortage occurred, the movement and accounting of the funds,
the respective roles of the petitioner and co-employees, and the possibility
of connivance or concert between the persons entrusted with the relevant
responsibilities are matters requiring effective investigation.
6.2. Prima facie , the prosecution allegation is not confined to a
solitary or isolated transaction but concerns an alleged systematic financial
discrepancy involving 12,60,000/-. In such circumstances, the custodial
₹
interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary to unravel the modus
operandi, ascertain the manner in which the amount was allegedly kept out
of the Company’s accounts, confront her with the relevant financial and
electronic records, and determine the respective roles of the petitioner and
other employees in the alleged misappropriation. The mere availability of
documentary material, therefore, cannot by itself render custodial
interrogation wholly unnecessary.
6.3. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the
position of responsibility occupied by the petitioner, the substantial
amount allegedly misappropriated, and the requirement of an effective
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.08 10:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-47567-2026 (O&M) -:5:-
investigation into the manner in which the financial irregularity was
perpetrated, this Court is not persuaded to extend the extraordinary
discretionary relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage.
Without expressing any opinion on the ultimate merits of the case, the
present petition is accordingly dismissed .
7. In view of the final disposal of the main petition, all pending
miscellaneous and consequential applications, if any, are rendered
infructuous and stand disposed of accordingly. No further orders are called
for.

( VIRINDER AGGARWAL )
07.09.2026 JUDGE
Gaurav Sorot
Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No
Whether reportable? Yes / No
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.08 10:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document