Amarjit Kaur Gahunia v. State Of Punjab
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.34361 of 2026 Date of Decision:-03.07.2026 Amarjit Kaur Gahunia .....Petitioner.
Versus
State of Punjab .....Respondent.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL ***** Present:- Mr. Shubham Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Rahul Jindal, AAG, Punjab.
VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL) Prayer in the present petition preferred by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short the 'BNSS') is for the grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.70 dated 16.06.2025 registered under Section 420 IPC, at Police Station Sadar Banga, District SBS Nagar.
2.
Status report by way of affidavit of Harjit Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division Banga, District SBS Nagar, filed by learned State counsel in Court, is taken on record. 3.
On a complaint submitted by one Ranbir Singh, the FIR in question was registered. The allegation was that the son of the petitioner namely Jasvir Singh and the petitioner along with certain other persons had
CRM-M No.34361 of 2026 -2duped the complainant of Rs.21,55,000/- on the pretext of sending him to Australia. Details of how the accused duped the complainant were given in the complaint on the basis of which the FIR was registered. 4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. He submits that the petitioner is the mother of the main accused Jasvir Singh against whom the allegations had been levelled. He submits that being the mother of Jasvir Singh, some amount had come to her account, but apart from that, she, in no manner, is concerned with the whole issue. He submits that the petitioner has clean antecedents and is a lady aged 60 years, who is willing to join investigation and abide by any condition imposed by this Court. 5.
Per contra, learned State counsel has submitted that the petitioner was actively involved with her son and in the process, a sum of Rs.21,55,000/- was received by the duo from the complainant on the pretext of sending him to Australia, but neither was he sent to Australia nor was the amount refunded. It has been submitted that Jasvir Singh has not yet been apprehended and is on the run and that another case of similar nature stands registered against the petitioner. It has, thus, been submitted that the petitioner does not deserve to be extended the concession of anticipatory bail.
6.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
7.
The petitioner was duly named along with her son and specific role has been attributed to her. A part of the amount is stated to
CRM-M No.34361 of 2026 -3have been paid to her. A substantial amount was transferred to her account as well. Jasvir Singh, her son, is on the run. Another case viz. FIR No.77 dated 05.07.2025 stands registered against the petitioner under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station Sadar Banga, District SBS Nagar. In the considered opinion of this Court, custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be imperative to elicit the truth and in any case, the facts of the case do not call for the concession of anticipatory bail being extended to the petitioner. 8.
That being so, the petition is found to be devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
(VIKRAM AGGARWAL) July 03, 2026 JUDGE Yag Dutt Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable:
Yes/No