Ankush Bhatia Alias Anmol vs State Of Haryana
2026 Latest Caselaw 2597 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Ankush Bhatia Alias Anmol vs State Of Haryana on 17 March, 2026

CRM-M--1785-2026                          -11-

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH


221                                              CRM-M-1785-2026
                                                 Date of Decision: 17.03.2026
                                                                        .2026


Ankush Bhatia @ Anmol
                                                             ...Petitioner.
      v.

State of Haryana
                                                             ...Respondent.


CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY.


Present:     Mr. Sarun Hans,, Advocate for the petitioner.

             Mr. Vishal Singh, AAG, Haryana.

                   ****

AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (Oral)

1. Petitioner, an accused in case FIR No.229 dated 01.08.2023

registered against him, under Sections 409 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B B IPC,

at Police Station City Ratia, District Fatehabad, has filed the present petition

for grant of bail under Section 483 4 BNSS.

2. Relevant facts as emerging from documents on record be b

noticed hereinbelow:-

hereinbelow:

Sh. Lakhwinder Singh-complainant, complainant, set the criminal law in

motion by filing a complaint requesting therein to initiate appropriate

criminal proceedings against the following persons:

persons:-

i. Yash Narang, Bank Manager, HDFC Bank Branch Ratia; ii. Ankush Bhatia, Bank official;

iii. Shaili wife of Ankush Bhatia;

iv. Jashandeep Singh;

1 of 13

v. Khan Chand, vi. Rakesh

Complainant alleged that all the aforementioned persons

fraudulently withdrew amount of Rs.2 crores from his saving account

No.50100487889333, 100487889333, HDFC Bank, Ratia Branch by appending his fake

signatures. Complainant further alleged that he is permanent resident of

village Kunal, Tehsil Ratia, District Fatehabad and is an agriculturist by

profession. He had visited Italy in connection w with ith business affairs and had

deposited money in his aforesaid account for purchasing land in near future.

When he finalized the deal, he visited the bank to withdraw the money, when

he came to know that a massive fraud has been played upon him by some

unknown own persons in conspiracy with the officers of the HDFC bank, who

had been withdrawing money from his account on different dates.. In the

complaint details of those transactions were given. Complainant specifically

pointed out that most of these transaction transactions are in the name of co-accused accused

Shaili, whose husband Ankush Bhatia (present petitioner) is a bank

employee.. He (c) never transferred money in the account of Shaili or the co-

accused Naresh Kumar nor did he sign any voucher or cheque. Immediately

when he came to know of this fraud, he brought the entire facts to the notice

of Branch Manager, Yash Narang, who initially assured full cooperation

and as also to return the money fraudulently withdrawn from his (c)

account. Complainant sought certain information from the bank officials,

who did not take any action for the next 22-3 3 days. Since he had to visit Italy,

he executed a Power of Attorney in favour of his cousin brother, Kuldeep

Singh. His wife accompanied by Kuldeep Singh visited the bank when the

Branch Manager, Yash Narang refused to cooperate. Seeing this apathetic

2 of 13

attitude of the Bank officials, he immediately cut short his visit and returned

back to India. Complainant also pointed out that on 29.04.2023, his FD of

Rs.31,01,678.62/ was encashed and the Rs.31,01,678.62/- he amount was transferred in his

account. Voucher in this regard was prepared by Ankush Bhatia (present

petitioner) who mentioned that the account holder had put his signatures on petitioner),

the said voucher in his (Ankush Bhatia) presence whereas on the said day

i.e. e. 29.04.2023 he was not present in India India.. Copy of the passport was also

enclosed by the complainant. It also came to the notice of complainant that

in his absence, accused persons had got issued cheque book in his name

without his knowledge and had thereafter misused the same by forging his

signatures It is further the plea of the complainant that he had never got the signatures.

relevant cheque book issued from the bank. Primarily with this backdrop, he

(c)) alleged that fraudulent act on the part of all the ac accused persons has

caused immense financial, emotional and physical trauma to him.

On the basis of the said complaint, criminal case vide FIR

No.229 dated 01.08.2023, u/s 409/420/467/468/471/120 409/420/467/468/471/120-B IPC, was initially

registered against Ankush Bhatia (petitioner) ioner) and Naresh Kumar. During

investigation, the relevant record of the bank were obtained.

On 20.11.2023, Ankush Bhatia (P) was arrested, who during

interrogation admitted to his involvement in the commission of offence and

also highlighted the role of co-accused Naresh Kumar, who was working in

Ratia Branch of HDFC Bank as BSO. According to Ankush, Naresh Kumar

used to append fake signatures of Lakwinder Singh on cheque books,

voucher etc., thus facilitating transfer of funds.

On 08.01.2024, co-accused accused Naresh was arrested who during

interrogation endorsed the stand of Ankush (P). Specimen signatures of

3 of 13

complainant and both the accused were obtained and were sent to FSL to

match with their admitted signatures. Bank accounts of the suspected vict victims ims

were also seized. The details of the accounts wherein the money was

deposited, was also collected.

On culmination of the investigation qua the aforementioned two

accused (including petitioner), challan was filed. Both the accused have

been charge-sheeted.

charge eted. During the course of the trial, an application u/s

173(8) Cr.PC was moved by complainant for further investigating the

matter.

Petitioner-accused, accused, who was arrested on 20.11.2023 filed an

application for grant of bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Fatehabad.

The same was dismissed vide order dated 26.04.2024. Aggrieved of which,

the present petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner has

been falsely implicated in the present case. Allegations levelled elled against him

that while having remained posted as Deputy Manager in Ratia Branch of

HDFC Bank, he illegally transferred the money not only from the account of

complainant but also from the accounts of other account holders in the

account of his wife, are absolutely frivolous. Petitioner had parted

ways/living separately from his wife during the relevant period.

The next leg of submission raised by learned counsel is that

investigation qua him (P) was completed long ago on filing of challan,

charges were framed against him and co co-accused Naresh. Till date only 03

prosecution witnesses out of 28 have been examined and, thus, the

likelihood of completion of the trial (offences being all magisterial triable) in

the near future is quite remote, as an app application u/s 173(8) Cr.PC filed by

4 of 13

the complainant is still pending. When appreciated in the light of

submissions advanced hereinabove, learned counsel contends that petitioner,

who has been in custody since 20.11.2023 20.11.2023,, deserves a lenient view to be

taken in his favour, as his further incarceration would not serve any useful

purpose as the same would be violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed

under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Prayer for allowing the petition

has been made.

4. Per contra,, while opposing the request for grant of the bail,

learned State counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the status report

dated 10.3.2026 filed by way of affidavit of Divyanshi Singla, IPS, Assistant

Superintendent of Police, Ratia, District Fat Fatehabad ehabad (Haryana), wherein apart

from mentioning the factual backdrop of the case leading to the lodging of

FIR, the modus operandi in which offence was committed has also been

highlighted. Role played by the petitioner has also been elaborated upon,

who as per prosecution, prosecution in conspiracy with the other accused accused-Naresh Naresh Kumar

withdrew huge amount from the saving account of the complainant by

forging his (c) signatures on vouchers, cheque etc. Surprisingly enough, it

also came to the notice of the Investigatin Investigating Officer that on 29.04.2023, F.D.

of the complainant amounting to Rs.31 lakh was encashed and the amount

was transferred in account of wife of petitioner. Petitioner had forged

signatures of complainant, complainant when he (c) was not present in India. In the light

of seriousness of allegations dismissal of petition has been prayed for. On a

pointed query raised by this Court, learned State counsel admits that HDFC

Bank has returned the entire amount to the complainant complainant.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

documents on record.

5 of 13

6. It is settled that grant or refusal of bail is the discretion of the

Court. Factors to be kept in mind while granting the concession of bail

have been discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several cases. The

essence being that while exercising powers under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (Pari Pari

materia to Section 483 of BNSS), the Court has to take into consideration

various para meters including the nature of the charge, evidence, seriousness

and gravity of offence, punishments to be awarded to a person, if he is

convicted his past antecedents etc. Thus, there can be no straight jacket convicted,

formula for exercising the discretion and each case has to be examined on its

peculiar facts.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1

SCC 40, had held as under:-

under:

"21. 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 principl principlee that punishment

begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be

innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.

22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention

in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great

hardship.

ardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some un- un

convicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to

6 of 13

secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, `necessity'

is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary

to o 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.

23. 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 convicti conviction on 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

un-convicted convicted person for the purpose of givin giving g him a taste of

imprisonment as a lesson.

XXX XXX XXX

46. 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 omy 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 custod custodyy may not be necessary

for further investigation. We are of the view that the appellants

7 of 13

are entitled to the grant of bail pending trial on stringent

conditions in order to ally the apprehension expressed by CBI.

47. In the view we have taken, it may not be necessary to

refer and discuss other issues canvassed by the learned counsel

for the parties and the case laws relied on in support of their

respective contentions. We clarify that we have not expressed

any opinion regarding the other legal issues canvassed by

learned counsel for the parties.

48. In the result, we order that the appellants be released on

bail on their executing a bond with two solvent sureties, each in

a sum of Rs.5 lakhs to the satisfaction of the Special Judge,

CBI, New Delhi on the following conditions ::-

(a) The appellants shall not directly or indirectly make any

inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with

the facts or the case so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts

to the Court or to any other authority.

(b) They shall remain present before the Court on the dates

fixed for hearing of the case. If they want to remain absent, then

they shall take prior permission of the court and in case of

unavoidable circumstances for rem remaining aining absent, they shall

immediately give intimation to the appropriate court and also

to the Superintendent, CBI and request that they may be

permitted to be present through the counsel.

(c) They will not dispute their identity as the accused in the

case.

8 of 13

(d) They shall surrender their passport, if any (if not already

surrendered), and in case, they are not a holder of the same,

they shall swear to an affidavit. If they have already

surrendered before the Ld. Special Judge, CBI, that fact should

also be supported by an affidavit.

(e) We reserve liberty to the CBI to make an appropriate

application for modification/recalling the order passed by us, if

for any reason, the appellants violate any of the conditions

imposed by this Court."

In Bihar Fodder Scam case, Hon'ble Supreme Court after

taking into consideration the seriousness of the charges alleged and the

maximum sentence of imprisonment that could he 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.

In Dipak Shubhaschandra Mehta v. CBI, 2012(4) SCC 134,

Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-

"18. The Court urt granting bail should exercise its discretion in

a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at

the stage of granting bail, a detailed examination of evidence

and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case need not

be undertaken, there re is a need to indicate in such orders

reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted,

particularly, where the accused is charged of having

committed a serious offence. The Court granting bail has to

consider, among other circumstances, th thee factors such as a) the

9 of 13

CRM-M--1785-2026 -10 10-

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 bailable offence apart from the seriousness of the

offence, likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and

tampering mpering with the prosecution witnesses, have to be noted."

(emphasis added).

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central

Bureau of Investigation, 2023(1) SCC (Crl.) 1, elaborated upon the factors

to be kept in mind while deciding the bail petitions in economic offences and

held that the law laid down in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of

Enforcement, (2020) 13 SCC 791, will govern the field. In P.

Chidambaram's case (supra), it was held as under:-

"Thus from cumulative perusal of the judgments cited on either

side including the one rendered by the Constitution Bench of

this Court, it could be deduced that the basic jurisprudence

relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail

is the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the

accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial. However,

while considering the same the gravity of the offence is an

aspect which is required to be kept in view by the Court. The

gravity for thee said purpose will have to be gathered from the

facts and circumstances arising in each case. Keeping in view

10 of 13

CRM-M--1785-2026 -11 11-

the consequences that would befall on the society in cases of

financial irregularities, it has been held that even economic

offences would fall under nder the category of "grave offence" and

in such circumstance while considering the application for bail

in such matters, the Court will have to deal with the same,

being sensitive to the nature of allegation made against the

accused. One of the circumstan circumstances ces to consider the gravity of the

offence is also the term of sentence that is prescribed for the

offence the accused is alleged to have committed. Such

consideration with regard to the gravity of offence is a factor

which is in addition to the triple tes testt or the tripod test that

would be normally applied. In that regard what is also to be

kept in perspective is that even if the allegation is one of grave

economic offence, it is not a rule that bail should be denied in

every case since there is no such bar created in the relevant

enactment passed by the legislature nor does the bail

jurisprudence provides so. Therefore, the underlining

conclusion is that irrespective of the nature and gravity of

charge, the precedent of another case alone will not be the

basis sis for either grant or refusal of bail though it may have a

bearing on principle. But ultimately the consideration will have

to be on case to case basis on the facts involved therein and

securing the presence of the accused to stand trial."

7. Reverting back to the facts of the case in hand, factual aspects

leading to lodging of registration of FIR have already been noticed in para 2

of this order. In view of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the

11 of 13

CRM-M--1785-2026 -12 12-

petitioner, but without commenting further on the merits of the case, lest it

may prejudice the trial, taking into consideration the fact that HDFC Bank

has deposited the entire amount in the account of the complainant, petitioner

has been in custody since 20.11.2023, investigations are complete but the

prospect of completion of trial in near future is bleak, this Court is of the

opinion that his (P) further incarceration would not only be violative of his

rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, including right to speedy

trial but would also also be against the principle of ""Bail Bail is a general rule and

incarceration is an exception"

exception" as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in as held

by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dataram vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and

another, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131.

8. Resultantly, ly, petitioner is granted the concession of bail subject

to his furnishing bail bonds along with two local sound sureties to the

satisfaction of learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned and that he will

not leave the territorial jurisdiction without sseeking eeking prior permission of the

concerned Court. The petitioner shall abide by the following conditions:

conditions:-

(i) The petitioner will surrender his passport and will not leave the country without prior permission of the trial Court.

             (ii)    The petitioner will not
                                          ot tamper with the evidence during
                     the trial.
             (iii)   The    petitioner       will    not   pressurize/intimidate   the
                     prosecution witnesses.
             (iv)    The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each

and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific order of Court.

(v) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which, he is an accused, or for commission of which he is suspected of.

12 of 13

CRM-M--1785-2026 -13 13-

(vi) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coerce, induce, threaten or promise to any person aacquainted cquainted 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.

(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse his liberty.

(viii) The petitionerr shall furnish his address and mobile number to the Trial Court forthwith and shall not change the same till the conclusion of the trial and in case for any reason, the petitioner seeks to change any of the aforesaid, the same shall be done only with prior prio intimation to the learned Trial Court, stating the reason for the same.

(ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other condition, as deemed appropriate while releasing the petitioner.

9. It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of

aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail

as granted to the petitioner by this order.

10. In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made

herein are limited for the purpose of present proc proceedings eedings and would not be

construed as an opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed

independently of the aforesaid observations. Accordingly, present petition is

allowed.

                                                 (AARADHNA SAWHNEY)
17.03.2026                                             JUDGE
gbs


             Whether Speaking/reasoned           :     Yes/No
             Whether Reportable                  :     Yes/No




                               13 of 13