Amit Dhingra vs State Of Punjab

CRM-M-43905-2026 (O&M)
1
and CRM-M-58313-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
1. CRM-M-43905-2026 (O&M)

ABHISHEK KUMAR GUPTA ...Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB …Respondent
2. CRM-M-58313-2026 (O&M)

AMIT DHINGRA ...Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB …Respondent
Sr. Particulars
No.
1. The day when the judgment is reserved 11.11.2026
2. The day when the judgment is pronounced 13.11.2026
3. The day when the judgment is uploaded on 13.11.2026
website
4. Whether only operative part of the judgments Full
is pronounced or full judgment is pronounced
5. The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full Not applicable
judgments and reasons thereof
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL
Argued by: Mr. K.S. Sidhu, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Praagbir Singh Dhindsa, Advocate
for the petitioner in CRM-M-43905-2026.
Mr. Akash Yadav, AAG Punjab
and Mr. Sukhbeer Singh, DAG Punjab.
Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Deepinder Singh Virk, Advocate for the petitioner
in CRM-M-28313-2026.
*
AJAY GOSWAMI
2026.11.13 19:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-43905-2026 (O&M)
2
and CRM-M-58313-2026
SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL , J.
1. Both petitions under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 filed by petitioners named above, seek regular bail in case FIR
No. 100 dated 21.07.2025 under Sections 316(5), 317(2), 336(3), 338, 340,
3(5) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Sadiq, District Faridkot.
This is the first petition for regular bail on behalf of petitioner-Amit Dhingra
and second petition on behalf of petitioner-Abhishek Kumar Gupta. His first
petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 14.11.2025.
2. Shashank Shekhar Arora, Deputy Manager, State Bank of India
lodged a complaint stating that some customers of the bank complained of
tampering with their agricultural limit accounts and F.D. accounts.
₹
Verification of record raised suspicion of fraud of 4,70,000/- in account of
₹
Boota Singh son of Balwinder Singh and 4,85,000/- in the account of one
Amrik Singh son of Jeon Singh and in many other accounts. Inquiry was
being conducted regarding other customers as well. Bank Clerk Amit
Dhingra son of Ramesh Kumar had cheated innocent persons. Legal action
against him was prayed for. On 23.07.2025, Shashank Shekhar Arora,
Deputy Manager, made over a letter regarding suspected entries in account
₹
of Rupender Kaur wife of Amit Dhingra to the tune of 2.30 crores during
the period from 31.03.2014 to 23.07.2025. Accused Rupender Kaur was
arrested in the case from her house, while she was packing her clothes and
attempting to flee abroad. She suffered disclosure statement which led to
recovery of various articles including laptops, smart phone, cheque book,
credit cards and debit cards etc. Petitioner-Amit Dhingra was apprehended
₹
and laptop, smart phone and 10,000/- were recovered from his possession.
AJAY GOSWAMI
2026.11.13 19:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-43905-2026 (O&M)
3
and CRM-M-58313-2026
Upon examination of bank accounts of Amit Dhingra, transactions worth
several crores were found with Abhishek Kumar Gupta resident of New
Delhi, Yashvir Singh, resident of Bihar and Swapneel, who were then
nominated as co-accused. Gold weighing 07 tolas was recovered and bank
account of Amit Dhingra was seized.
3. Learned counsel on behalf of petitioner-Abhishek Kumar Gupta
submits that Amit Dhingra was the principal accused. As per prosecution
case, petitioner came in contact with Amit Dhingra in 2020 who transferred
various sums of money in his account. Learned counsel further submits that
petitioner was one of the several persons to whom money was transferred.
He was not an employee of the bank nor had any criminal intent to embezzle
₹
public money. Co-accused Rupender Kaur, in whose favour 2.30 crores
were transferred, was allowed regular bail by this Court. Petitioner had clean
antecedents. He was not involved in any other case. The amount of
₹
10,00,000/- alleged to have been transferred to the petitioner on
07.08.2025, was in fact, transferred by petitioner’s brother from his bank
account with Kotak Mahender Bank, Krishna Nagar Branch, New Delhi and
not by the co-accused-Amit Dhingra. In this context, he refers to the account
statement Annexure P-1 and P-2. Petitioner, who was in relationship with
Amit Dhingra could not be held liable for the offences committed by co-
accused. Petitioner was in judicial custody for the last 01 year 04 months
and at best, offence under Section 411 IPC was made out against him, which
was punishable with maximum imprisonment upto 03 years. Therefore,
petitioner deserved to be enlarged on regular bail.
AJAY GOSWAMI
2026.11.13 19:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-43905-2026 (O&M)
4
and CRM-M-58313-2026
4. On behalf of petitioner-Amit Dhingra, learned Senior counsel
referred to copy of the charge sheet framed by the Court of learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot, to submit that petitioner was
₹
accused of embezzlement of 2.30 crores from various bank accounts, while
serving as a Clerk in State Bank of India. He had no criminal antecedents
and was in judicial custody w.e.f. 30.04.2025. Charges were framed and
prosecution evidence was ongoing. Prosecution sought to fasten the entire
fraud upon the petitioner without examining role of other officials
concerned. It was unacceptable that the fraud could not be detected for 11
years, despite audits conducted in the bank. There was no FSL report to
corroborate the allegations of forgery and fabrication, no FDR or mutual
fund receipts said to be forged and fabricated, were part of the police record.
Prosecution had cited 131 witnesses and though more than 09 months had
elapsed, after framing of charges, only 01 witness was examined, that too
partly. Case was triable by the Court of Magistrate. Prosecution evidence did
conclude within 60 days from the first date fixed for evidence. Therefore,
petitioner was entitled for release on regular bail under Section 480(6)
BNSS, since the delay in conclusion of trial was not attributable to the
petitioner. The case was entirely based on documentary evidence and further
incarceration of the petitioner would not serve any purpose.
5. Learned State counsel opposed the prayer for regular bail
submitting that petitioner-Amit Dhingra being the banker, fraudulently
diverted funds from bank accounts of customers to co-accused including his
own wife, thus, adversely affecting the integrity and authenticity of banking
system. In case the petitioner-Amit Dhingra was released on bail, he could
AJAY GOSWAMI
2026.11.13 19:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-43905-2026 (O&M)
5
and CRM-M-58313-2026
flee from jurisdiction of the Court. Considering the gravity of offences, the
both petitions for bail deserved dismissal.
6. While considering prayer for bail, detailed examination of
evidence and elaborate discussion on merits of the case is not necessitated,
though the Court is required to record reasons for prima facie concluding
why bail is being granted, particularly where the accused is charged of a
serious offence. Factors which the Court needs to consider, amongst other
circumstances as delineated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dipak
shubhashchandra Mehta Vs. CBI 2012(4) SCC 134 are as follows:
“.......... a) the nature of accusation and severity of punishment in
case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence;
b) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or
apprehension of threat to the complainant and;
c) prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge.
In addition to the same, the Court while considering a petition for
grant of bail in a non-bailable offence apart from the seriousness of
the offence, likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and
tampering with the prosecution witnesses, have to be noted. ”
7. Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in the said case that when the
under trial prisoners are detained in jail custody to an indefinite period,
Article 21 of the Constitution is violated, further observing that though the
appellant along with others was charged with economic offences of serious
magnitude, Court could not loose sight of the fact that Investigating Agency
completed the investigation, submitted charge sheet including additional
charge sheet, but charges were not framed, therefore, custody of the
appellant may not be necessary.
AJAY GOSWAMI
2026.11.13 19:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-43905-2026 (O&M)
6
and CRM-M-58313-2026
8. In Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI 2012(1) SCC 40, Lordships of
Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:
"14. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the
earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of
the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The
object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of
liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to
ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon.
The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that
punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to
be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. From the earliest
times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending
completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to
time, necessity demands that some un-convicted persons should be
held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial
but in such cases, 'necessity' is the operative test. In this country, it
would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined
in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of
any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any
circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the
belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in
the most extraordinary circumstances. Apart from the question of
prevention being the object of a refusal of bail, one must not lose
sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a
substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any Court
to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether
the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an
AJAY GOSWAMI
2026.11.13 19:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-43905-2026 (O&M)
7
and CRM-M-58313-2026
un-convicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of
imprisonment as a lesson.”
xxxx
“27) In `Bihar Fodder Scam', this Court, taking into consideration
the seriousness of the charges alleged and the maximum sentence of
imprisonment that could be imposed including the fact that the
appellants were in jail for a period more than six months as on the
date of passing of the order, was of the view that the further
detention of the appellants as pre-trial prisoners would not serve any
purpose.
28) We are conscious of the fact that the accused are charged with
economic offences of huge magnitude. We are also conscious of the
fact that the offences alleged, if proved, may jeopardize the economy
of the country. At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that
the investigating agency has already completed investigation and the
charge sheet is already filed before the Special Judge, CBI, New
Delhi. Therefore, their presence in the custody may not be necessary
for further investigation. We are of the view that the appellants are
entitled to the grant of bail pending trial on stringent conditions in
order to ally the apprehension expressed by CBI.”
9. Thus, the consideration by the Court is not only the seriousness
of the allegations, but also whether petitioner is in a position to influence the
witnesses in the event of release on bail and whether he is likely to flee from
justice. Allegations against the petitioners are, no doubt serious, in nature.
However, evidence to be led by the prosecution is primarily documentary in
nature. Case is triable by Court of Magistrate. Petitioners are incarcerated for
01 year 02 months and 29 days. They have clean antecedents. Trial is at
AJAY GOSWAMI
2026.11.13 19:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-43905-2026 (O&M)
8
and CRM-M-58313-2026
nascent stage. Out of total 131 prosecution witnesses, only 01 has been
examined so far, that too partly. There is no reason to believe that petitioners
would flee from justice or would not be available for trial. Conclusion of
trial is likely to take time, petitioners, therefore, cannot be incarcerated
indefinitely. Due to slow progress of the trial, petitioners’ right to speedy
trial has been gravely prejudiced and they deserve release on bail on this sole
ground.
10. Considering the period of custody undergone by the petitioners
and all relevant facts of the case, the petitions are allowed. Petitioners are
ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to their furnishing adequate
bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of Trial Court/Duty Magistrate
subject to following conditions:
1. They shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
2. They shall not change their residence without prior
intimation to the Police Station concerned and the trial Court.
3. They shall not influence the prosecution witnesses.
4. They shall not commit an offence similar to the one they
are accused of.
5. They shall not directly or indirectly coerce, induce,
threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of
the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to
the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence in
any manner.
AJAY GOSWAMI
2026.11.13 19:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-43905-2026 (O&M)
9
and CRM-M-58313-2026
6 They shall surrender their passports before learned trial
Court and shall not leave the country without prior permission
of the Court.
7. They shall not in any manner misuse their liberty.
Learned trial Court would, however, be at liberty to impose any
other condition as may be deemed fit.
11. In case, the petitioners fail to abide by the conditions, learned
trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel their bail on application filed by the
State.
12. Pending CRM(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL)
JUDGE
13.11.2026
Ajay Goswami Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No

AJAY GOSWAMI
2026.11.13 19:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document