Allowed

Minakshi v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Jul 2026CRM-M/22556/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS in an FIR alleging embezzlement of Rs.50 lakh by the petitioner's husband, who allegedly transferred Rs.6 lakh to her account. Court found allegations mainly against the husband and that petitioner's account was operated by him; interim bail was made absolute after she joined investigation.

What did the court decide?

Interim anticipatory bail made absolute subject to Section 482(2) BNSS conditions; petitioner to join investigation as required.

Minakshi Vs State of Haryana — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

CRM-M-22556-2026

¶2

¶3

107 (1^st case) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-22556-2026

Minakshi

....Petitione r

versus

State of Har y ana

....Responden t

Date of Decision: July 15, 2026 Date of Uploading: July 15, 2026

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

¶12

Present : Mr. Garvit Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Hary a na.

¶14

Mr. Jaskaran Singh, Advocate a n d Ms. Gurpalak Kaur, Advocate f o r the complainant.

¶15

¶16

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

¶17

Present petition has been fil e d under Section 482 of th e Bhartiya Na g arik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ( for short ‘BNSS’) for grant o f concession o f anticipatory bail to the petit i oner, in case FIR No.69 date d 13.03.2026, under Sections 318(4) and 316 ( 2) of the BNS, 2023, at Polic e Station Tara o ri, Karnal.

¶18

On 24.04.2026, the following o r der was passed:

¶19

“ 1. The present petition has be en filed under Section 482 of BNS S, 2023 (Section 438 of Cr.P.C.) for gr a nt of anticipatory bail in case bearin g FIR No.69 dated 13.03.2026, under Sections 318(4) and 316(2) of BN S, registered at Police Station Taraori, K arnal.

¶20

Briefly stated, the complai na nt Narender submitted a complain t regarding fraud committed in his C o mpany by his employee Shiv Kuma r (the husband of the petitioner) am o unting to approximately Rs.50 lak h during the past several months. Co-accused Shiv Kumar allegedl y transferred the said amount of Rs.5 0 lakh in various accounts, includin g that of the present petitioner.

¶21

MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.15 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

¶22

CRM-M-22556-2026

¶23

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the allegations in the present case are against the husband of the petitioner namely, Shiv Kumar, to the effect that he has embezzled the money of his employerCompany to the tune of Rs.50 lakh; the allegations against the present petitioner are that her bank account was used to park that money. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner is innocent as her bank account was operated by her husband, i.e. main accused Shiv Kumar, and the mobile number of her husband is linked with the petitioner’s bank account in question; the petitioner is a house-hold lady and criminal liability cannot be fastened upon the petitioner simply by reason of being the wife of the main-accused. It is also contended that since it is alleged that money has been transferred in her account, the said bank account could be seized by the respondent-State for recovery of the money embezzled; the petitioner is having clean & clear antecedents and is not involved in any other case. Learned counsel prayed for anticipatory bail as the petitioner is ready to join the investigation.

¶25

Notice of motion.

¶26

Mr. Satbir Singh Goripuria, DAG, Haryana, who is present in Court accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and opposed the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner while submitting that an amount of Rs.6.00 lakh has been transferred in the bank account of the present petitioner during a span of 03 years; due to the transfer of money over a prolonged duration of time, it cannot be believed that petitioner was unaware of the illegal activities of her husband-accused; petitioner is the beneficiary of the duped amount and petitioner has utilized the same for house loan payment and to purchase articles like mobile phone etc.; the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation and as such prayed for dismissal of grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. He, however, fairly admits that the petitioner is not involved in any other case and is having clean antecedents.

¶27

Mr. Jaskaran Singh, Advocate put in appearance through video conferencing on behalf of the complainant and opposed the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner while submitting that the embezzled amount has been transferred in the name of the present petitioner and hence, is prima facie involved in the present case being beneficiary of the embezzled amount. Thus, he prayed for dismissal of present petition.

¶28

Heard.

¶29

Taking into consideration the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and the facts of the present case, the main allegation is against the husband of the petitioner i.e. Shiv Kumar, that he embezzled a sum of Rs.50 lakh in his employer-Company. Out of the said embezzled amount, Rs. 6.00 lakh was transferred to the bank account of present petitioner over a span of 03 years, however, in view of the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner’s bank account was operated by her husband; even the phone number linked with petitioner’s bank account is that of her husband; petitioner is a simple house-wife and was unaware of the illegal activities of her husband; hence, this Court finds merit in the present petition and as such, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation as and when required by Investigating Officer. In the event of her arrest, the petitioner shall be admitted to interim bail on furnishing of bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of investigating/arresting Officer subject to the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of the BNSS (erstwhile Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.), till the next date of hearing.

¶30

Adjourned to 15.07.2026. ”

¶31

MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.15 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

¶32

CRM-M-22556-2026

¶33

¶34

Learned State counsel (on instructions) has stated that pursuant to the order dated 24.04.2026, the petitioner has joined investigation, but his custodial interrogation is required for effecting money in question.

¶35

Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature, and in case, the petitioner is extended the concession of anticipatory bail, there is all likelihood that he may abscond from the process of justice and interfere in the prosecution evidence.

¶36

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record; especially in view of the factum of the petitioner having joined investigation and his custodial interrogation being sought only for effecting money in question; the interim order dated 24.04.2026 passed by this Court is made absolute, subject to the conditions as enumerated under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023.

¶37

Petition stands allowed , accordingly.

¶38

This order should not be treated as “blanket” order. It will not

¶39

be read as granting petitioner indefinite protection from arrest. It shall be confined to the FIR mentioned ibid and will not operate in respect of any other incident that involves commission of an offence.

¶40

Liberty is reserved in favour of State/complainant to move for cancellation/recall of this order in case the petitioner violates any condition stipulated under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023 or upon showing any other sufficient cause.

¶41

Needless to say that anything observed herein above shall not be construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case.

¶42

MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.15 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

¶43

CRM-M-22556-2026

¶44

¶45

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶46

(SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE

¶47

July 15, 2026 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶48

MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.15 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

Minakshi v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Minakshi v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurpreet Singh @ Laddi Vs State of Punjab

Ranjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Aarti Sindhu Vs State of Haryana

Jarmanjit Singh @ Jarman Vs State of Punjab

Manpreet Singh Alias Mani Vs State of Punjab

Hardeep Singh and Another Vs State of Punjab