[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pushpinder Kaur vs State Of Punjab on 29 January, 2026
CRM-M-55637-2024 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
101
CRM-M-55637-2024
Decided on: 29.01.2026
Pushpinder Kaur
......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
Present: Mr. L.S. Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
****
SANJAY VASHISTH, J.
1. Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS,
2023 (earlier Section 438 Cr.P.C.), is for grant of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First
Information Report, as detailed hereunder:-
Name & age of FIR Date Section(s) Police District
Petitioner (s) No. Station
Pushpinder 172 10.10.2024 420 IPC City-II Mansa
Kaur
2. On 08.10.2025, following order was passed:-
"1. Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482 of
the BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438 Cr.P.C.), is for grant
of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who has been booked
in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report,
as detailed hereunder:-
Name & age FIR Date Section(s) Police District
of Petitioner No. Station
(s)
1 of 5
Pushpinder 172 10.10. 420 IPC City-II Mansa
Kaur 2024
2. On oral request made by counsel for the petitioner,
complainant namely Gurtej, son of Gurmail Singh,
resident of Village Kotli Kalan, District Mansa, is ordered
to be impleaded as respondent No.2. Let amended memo of
parties be filed by counsel for the petitioner in the
Registry, within a period of two days from today, without
moving any separate application.
3. As per the allegations in the FIR, complainant,
Gurtej, was allegedly duped of an amount of
Rs.13,89,000/- by the petitioner on the pretext of sending
him abroad, specifically to USA. It is claimed that an
amount of Rs.6,50,000/- was paid on 12.12.2023, and a
further amount of Rs.6,50,000/- was transferred to the
bank account of co-accused Ajay Kumar, resident of Delhi.
Despite these payments, no arrangements were made to
facilitate the complainant's travel abroad, nor was the
amount returned, giving rise to the present case against
the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no
money was ever deposited with or received by the
petitioner and the allegations are false and concocted. It is
further argued that FIR has been lodged after an
inordinate and unexplained delay, and there exists no
written agreement between the complainant and petitioner
in relation to the alleged transaction. Further submits that
vide order dated 15.01.2025, petitioner expressed
willingness to amicably resolve the dispute by refunding
the amount, subject to verification that such funds were in
fact credited to him or his bank account. It is also pointed
out that the offences alleged are triable by the Court of
learned Magistrate and petitioner is willing to cooperate
with the investigating agency, provided he is granted
protection from arrest by this Court.
2 of 5
5. As per the status report dated 17.07.2025, filed by
the respondent/State and already annexed with the present
petition, petitioner does not possess any immigration
license issued by the office of Deputy Commissioner-cum-
Licensing Authority, Mansa. However, petitioner is found
to be maintaining multiple bank accounts, i.e. (i) Central
Bank of India, Branch Mansa; (ii) HDFC Bank, Branch
Mansa; (iii) Mansa Central Co-operative Bank, Branch
Mansa; (iv) Punjab National Bank, Branch Water Works
Road, Mansa; (v) State Bank of India, Branch Mansa; and
(vi) Punjab National Bank, Branch Tinkoni, Mansa, all of
which have been frozen by the Investigating Officer.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that dispute with respondent No.2/complainant has been
amicably settled in its entirety, and the agreed payment
has also been made to the complainant. In light of the
settlement, it is prayed that petitioner be granted the
concession of anticipatory bail in the present case.
7. On the other hand, counsel for respondent
No.2/complainant confirms the factum of settlement
between the parties and submits that the settled amount of
Rs.4,00,000/- has been duly received by the complainant.
8. List again on 10.12.2025.
9. Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join the
investigation as and when required to do so by the
Investigating Agency. In the event of her arrest, the
petitioner shall be released on ad-interim bail, subject to
her furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the
Arresting Officer. The petitioner shall also be abide by all
the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS,
2023 (earlier Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.).
10. Besides, it is directed that petitioner would hand
over her passport to the Investigating Agency or to Court
concerned, if she possesses. Otherwise, would submit an
3 of 5
affidavit, disclosing the fact that she does not possess any
passport.
It is also directed that before leaving country any
time during trial, petitioner would seek prior permission of
the Court. "
Since petitioner had not joined the investigation, he was
once again directed, vide order dated 10.12.2025, to join the investigation
in terms of the order dated 08.10.2025.
3. Continuing his submissions, learned counsel for the
petitioner contends that in compliance with the order dated 08.10.2025
passed by this Court, petitioner has joined the investigation and has
extended full cooperation. Therefore, he prays for confirmation of the
said interim anticipatory bail order.
4. Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Darshan
Singh, submits that although the petitioner joined the investigation on
28.01.2026, she has failed to submit her passport.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that he has no
objection if the prayer made in the present petition is allowed, as the
petitioner has already made the agreed payment after the filing of the
instant petition.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. In view of the stand taken by the respondents and the fact
that the petitioner has already joined the investigation, and custodial
interrogation is no longer required, the ad-interim bail order dated
4 of 5
08.10.2025 passed by this Court is hereby made absolute. Accordingly,
the present petition is allowed.
8. However, the petitioner shall continue to join the
investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer and shall
abide by all the terms and conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS, 2023).
9. Accordingly, petition stands disposed of.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
29.01.2026
Rashmi
Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO
Whether Reportable: YES/NO
5 of 5
