Karamjit Kaur vs State ( Nct Of Delhi) & Anr.

$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: 05 November, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010378892026
+ BAIL APPLN. 3336/2026 & CRL.M.A. 24985/2026
KARAMJIT KAUR .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Ishita Bedi, Mr. Vikram Pratap
Singh and Mohd. Imran Hamid, Advs.
Mob: 95825620944
Email: [email protected]


versus

STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for the
State
Mob: 9868632122
Mr. Sandeep Singh, Insp., Cyber Cell,
Crime Branch


CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

MINI PUSHKARNA, J. (Oral):
1. The present application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner under
Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”),
seeking anticipatory bail in connection with the First Information Report
nd
(“FIR”) being FIR No. 80/2026 dated 02 May, 2026, registered at Police
Station (“PS”) Crime Branch, Delhi, under Sections 318(4)/319/340 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

2. The petitioner had previously filed an application for anticipatory bail
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:36:52
Page 1 of 10

before the Additional Sessions Judge-02/Special Judge (NDPS), North West
nd
District, Rohini Courts, Delhi, which was dismissed vide order dated 22
June, 2026, in Bail Matters 1500/2026 .
3. The case of the prosecution, as culled out from the material on record,
is as follows:
3.1. In January 2026, the complainant came into contact with a woman, who
introduced herself as “Ananya Verma” through WhatsApp. Through
continuous communication, inducement and false representations, the
complainant was persuaded to invest an amount of Rs. 36,40,000/- (“cheated
amount”) on a purported online trading platform which displayed fictitious
profits.
3.2. The cheated amount was found to have been transferred to multiple
bank accounts, forming a layered structure designed to conceal the source and
destination of the proceeds of crime.
3.3. During the course of interrogation, one of the co-accused persons,
namely, Gagandeep Singh @ Gurmukh, disclosed that he maintained a bank
account with SBI, into which Rs. 7,50,000/- of the cheated amount had been
th
credited on 28 January, 2026. He further disclosed that he had shared his
account details with another co-accused person, namely, Rakesh Kumar @
Tony, to receive money in lieu of commission. Rakesh had represented to him
that his female friend, i.e., the petitioner, was expecting funds from abroad
and required another bank account to receive them. Acting on this
representation, Gagandeep permitted Rakesh to use his account.
3.4. After receiving Rs. 7,50,000/-, Gagandeep withdrew Rs. 7,00,000/- in
cash by cheque and handed it over to Rakesh, transferred Rs. 25,000/- to the
number provided by Rakesh, and retained the remaining Rs. 25,000/-.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:36:52
Page 2 of 10

3.5. Thereafter, Rakesh joined the investigation and admitted that he had
obtained the bank account details of Gagandeep to route funds received from
the petitioner. He further disclosed that after Gagandeep handed over the
amount of Rs. 7,00,000/-, he had delivered the same to the petitioner in
exchange for a commission. He also disclosed that Rs. 1,00,000/- had been
credited to his own bank account at the instance of the petitioner, of which he
had transferred Rs. 90,000/- to another bank account on her instructions.
3.6. During investigation, it was found that the said amount of Rs. 90,000/-
had been credited to the bank account of the petitioner, who thereafter
transferred Rs. 51,000/- to another bank account.
3.7. Both the co-accused persons, i.e., Gagandeep and Rakesh, were
th
arrested on 27 May, 2026, after technical investigation and examination of
WhatsApp chats revealed that Rakesh had facilitated the diversion of the
cheated amount and induced Gagandeep to permit the use of his bank account
on the promise of a commission.
4. The grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner has been opposed on the
following grounds:
4.1. Although the petitioner has joined the investigation, her responses
during interrogation have been evasive and unsatisfactory, and she has failed
to provide a consistent explanation for the receipt of Rs. 90,000/- in her bank
account and the subsequent transfer of Rs. 51,000/-.
4.2. Key incriminating evidence, including cheque books, welcome kits and
ATM cards pertaining to the bank accounts in question, is yet to be recovered
from the co-accused persons.
4.3. The cheated amount is yet to be fully recovered, and the possibility of
further diversion, layering or concealment of the proceeds of crime cannot be
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:36:52
Page 3 of 10

ruled out at this stage.
4.4. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to trace the
complete money trail across its various layers, identify the ultimate
beneficiaries and establish the role of other persons involved in the
conspiracy.
4.5. Custodial interrogation is also required to effect recoveries and unearth
the conspiracy, which may not be possible through mere questioning while
the petitioner remains protected from arrest.
5. The following submissions have been made on behalf of the petitioner
in support of grant of anticipatory bail:
5.1. The petitioner is a 47-year-old woman residing in Punjab, and has two
minor children. She comes from an economically modest background and
earns her livelihood by providing small loans to women in her village through
informal micro-financing arrangements.
5.2. The petitioner has no criminal antecedents and has deep roots in
society.
5.3. The case of the prosecution rests substantially on the disclosure
statements of the co-accused persons, without any independent corroboration
of the allegations against the petitioner.
5.4. No overt act has been attributed to the petitioner apart from the receipt
of Rs. 90,000/- from Rakesh in her bank account.
5.5. The petitioner had borrowed the aforesaid amount from Rakesh in the
ordinary course of their longstanding financial dealings, without any
knowledge or reason to suspect that it originated from unlawful activity.
5.6. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary, as the prosecution
case rests entirely on documentary and digital evidence, including banking
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:36:52
Page 4 of 10

records and electronic transactions, which is already in the possession of the
Investigating Agency.
6. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and have perused the
record.
7. At the outset, it is apposite to set out the scope of the power of this
Court to grant anticipatory bail.
8. Reliance may be placed upon the case of Srikant Upadhyay and Others
Versus State of Bihar and Another, (2024) 12 SCC 382 , wherein, the
Supreme Court has held that the power to grant anticipatory bail is an
extraordinary power and must be exercised with caution in serious cases,
where its grant may result in a miscarriage of justice and significantly hamper
the investigation, as it may lead to tampering with or destruction of evidence.
The relevant paragraph of the judgment reads as under:
“xxx xxx xxx
30. We have already held that the power to grant anticipatory
bail is an extraordinary power. Though in many cases it was
held that bail is said to be a rule, it cannot, by any stretch of
imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is the rule. It cannot
be the rule and the question of its grant should be left to the
cautious and judicious discretion by the court depending on the
facts and circumstances of each case. While called upon to
exercise the said power, the court concerned has to be very
cautious as the grant of interim protection or protection to the
accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice
and may hamper the investigation to a great extent as it may
sometimes lead to tampering or distraction of the evidence.
We shall not be understood to have held that the court shall not
pass an interim protection pending consideration of such
application as the section is destined to safeguard the freedom
of an individual against unwarranted arrest and we say that
such orders shall be passed in eminently fit cases. At any rate,
when warrant of arrest or proclamation is issued, the applicant
is not entitled to invoke the extraordinary power. Certainly, this
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:36:52
Page 5 of 10

will not deprive the power of the court to grant pre-arrest bail
in extreme, exceptional cases in the interest of justice. But then,
person(s) continuously defying orders and keeps absconding is
not entitled to such grant.

xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
9. With regard to the need for custodial interrogation as a factor affecting
the grant of anticipatory bail, in the case of P. Krishna Mohan Reddy Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1157 , it has been held as
under:
“xxx xxx xxx
21. It was sought to be argued that the petitioners have already
joined the investigation and are fully cooperating with the
investigating agency and therefore, there is no need for
custodial interrogation.

22. The petitioners might have been cooperating with the
investigation and they might have been interrogated also by
the investigating agency so far but, at the same time, we
should not overlook the fact that by grant of anticipatory bail,
we may come in the way of the investigating agency if at all it
wants custodial interrogation.

23. As held by this Court in Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar
C.K., (2022) 17 SCC 391 that it would be preposterous as a
proposition of law to say that if custodial interrogation is not
required that by itself is sufficient to grant anticipatory bail.
Even in cases where custodial interrogation may not be
required the court is obliged to consider the entire case put up
by the State, more particularly, the nature of the offence, the
punishment provided in law for such offence etc.

24. It is needless to say that for the purpose of custodial
interrogation, the investigating agency has to make out a
prima facie case at the time when remand is prayed for.
Whether any case for police remand is made out or not, it is
for the Court concerned to look into.

25. In such circumstances, referred to above, we are of the view
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:36:52
Page 6 of 10

that we should not come in the way of the investigating agency
at this point of time and the investigation should be permitted
to proceed further.

xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
10. Fruitful reference may also be made to the case of P. Chidambaram
Versus Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24 , wherein, the Supreme
Court has observed that in cases involving economic offences, the grant of
anticipatory bail at the stage of investigation may frustrate effective
interrogation and collection of evidence, and that such relief should be granted
only in exceptional circumstances. The relevant portions of the judgment are
reproduced below:
“xxx xxx xxx
78. Power under Section 438 CrPC being an extraordinary
remedy, has to be exercised sparingly; more so, in cases of
economic offences. Economic offences stand as a different
class as they affect the economic fabric of the society. In
Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain
[Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain, (1998) 2
SCC 105 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 510] , it was held that in economic
offences, the accused is not entitled to anticipatory bail.

xxx xxx xxx

81. Observing that economic offences constitute a class apart
and need to be visited with different approach in the matter of
bail, in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI [Y.S. Jagan Mohan
Reddy v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 552] ,
the Supreme Court held as under: (SCC p. 449, paras 34-35)

“34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and
need to be visited with a different approach in the matter
of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted
conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds
need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave
offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole
and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:36:52
Page 7 of 10

of the country.

35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the
nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support
thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction
will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances
which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility
of securing the presence of the accused at the trial,
reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered
with, the larger interests of the public/State and other
similar considerations.”

xxx xxx xxx

83. Grant of anticipatory bail at the stage of investigation may
frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the
accused and in collecting the useful information and also the
materials which might have been concealed. Success in such
interrogation would elude if the accused knows that he is
protected by the order of the court. Grant of anticipatory bail,
particularly in economic offences would definitely hamper
the effective investigation. Having regard to the materials said
to have been collected by the respondent Enforcement
Directorate and considering the stage of the investigation, we
are of the view that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.

84. In a case of money-laundering where it involves many
stages of “placement”, “layering i.e. funds moved to other
institutions to conceal origin” and “interrogation i.e. funds
used to acquire various assets”, it requires systematic and
analysed investigation which would be of great advantage. As
held in Anil Sharma [State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 :
1997 SCC (Cri) 1039], success in such interrogation would
elude if the accused knows that he is protected by a pre-arrest
bail order. Section 438 CrPC is to be invoked only in
exceptional cases where the case alleged is frivolous or
groundless. In the case in hand, there are allegations of
laundering the proceeds of the crime. The Enforcement
Directorate claims to have certain specific inputs from various
sources, including overseas banks. Letter rogatory is also said
to have been issued and some response have been received by
the Department. Having regard to the nature of allegations and
the stage of the investigation, in our view, the investigating
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:36:52
Page 8 of 10

agency has to be given sufficient freedom in the process of
investigation. Though we do not endorse the approach of the
learned Single Judge in extracting the note produced by the
Enforcement Directorate, we do not find any ground
warranting interference with the impugned order [P.
Chidambaram v. CBI, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9703].
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in our
view, grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant will hamper the
investigation and this is not a fit case for exercise of discretion
to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant.

xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
11. Having regard to the aforementioned judgments and the submissions
made before this Court, custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be
necessary to help ascertain the full extent of the alleged fraud, identify the
multiple layers of transactions and identify other persons who may be
involved.

12. This Court also notes that a substantial portion of the cheated amount
remains unrecovered, and its ultimate destination is yet to be traced.
13. Furthermore, the alleged involvement of the petitioner is supported by
the receipt of Rs. 90,000/- of the cheated amount in her bank account and the
subsequent transfer of Rs. 51,000/- to another bank account. Thus, the
allegations against her do not rest solely on the disclosure statements made by
the co-accused persons, but are also supported by banking transactions that
require further investigation. There is independent documentary and banking
corroboration of petitioner’s connection with the financial trail.
14. Pertinently, this Court notes that despite joining the investigation, the
petitioner has failed to offer a consistent and satisfactory explanation for the
receipt of the said amount, thereby reinforcing the need for her custodial
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:36:52
Page 9 of 10

interrogation.
15. Besides the need for custodial interrogation, the nature and gravity of
the alleged offences are serious, given their economic character and the wider
implications of such financial fraud for society as a whole. This Court also
takes note of the fact that the cheated amount of Rs. 36,40,000/- has not yet
been fully recovered and the complete financial trail of the cheated funds is
still under investigation.
16. Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case,
I do not consider this to be a fit case for the grant of anticipatory bail.
17. The present application is dismissed for the aforesaid reasons.
18. Needless to state, any observations made in the present order are solely
for the purpose of deciding the present application, and shall neither influence
the outcome of the trial proceedings, nor be construed as an expression of
opinion on the merits of the case.



/MINI PUSHKARNA, J
NOVEMBER 5, 2026/ SK
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:36:52
Page 10 of 10