Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ritu Kangra vs State Of Haryana on 24 February, 2026
CRM-M-20032-2025 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
101 CRM-M-20032-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision:24.02.2026
Ritu Kangra ... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present: Mr. Neeraj Sansaniwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana.
...
Manisha Batra, J. (Oral).
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') by the petitioner seeking grant of anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No.51, dated 13.03.2025, registered under Section 3(5), 316(2), 318(4), 319, 336(3), 338 and 340 of the BNS, at Police Station Arya Nagar, District Rohtak.
2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by the Chief Manager of Punjab National Bank, Civil Lines, Rohtak branch, alleging therein that one account was operative in the name of Dhanno Devi in the concerned branch of the Bank. The said Dhanno Devi had died on 22.06.2016. On 22.05.2024, his daughter Sushila Kataria approached the bank for updating the record and then it was revealed that on 26.03.2018, some female by impersonating herself as Smt. Dhanno Devi, 1 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 25-02-2026 23:54:02 ::: CRM-M-20032-2025 (O&M) -2- had approached the bank officials to operate the abovesaid account, which was lying in dormant position. The concerned officer after asking her to provide KYC norms and depositing Rs.100/- in the account to make it active, had made it active. It was alleged that the account was made active by the then Senior Manager Sudarshan Kumar Pahwa in connivance with the present petitioner and some unknown persons by depositing Rs.100/- in the account of Smt. Dhanno Devi. The documents, which were received and used to make the account operative were found to be missing from the bank record. On 26.03.2019 also, by making account in operative category, withdrawal of a sum of Rs.100/- had been made in favour of unknown person. The withdrawal was posted by the present petitioner, who was posted as Manager and was approved/passed by the Senior Manager Sudarshan Kumar Pahwa. It was also revealed that on 30.03.2019, withdrawal of a sum of Rs.2 lakhs and on 16.04.2019 withdrawal of another sum of Rs.1.60 lakhs had been passed by accused Vinod Kumar Khurana, Sudarshan Kumar Pahwa and Prem Kumar Dhingra, employees/officials of the bank.
3. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings have been initiated and are underway. During the course of investigation, it was found that the KYC record and withdrawal vouchers were missing from the record of the bank. The investigation is still underway. Apprehending her arrest, the petitioner moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail, which has been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak vide order dated 04.04.2025.
4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that she has 2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 25-02-2026 23:54:03 ::: CRM-M-20032-2025 (O&M) -3- been falsely implicated in this case. The only role attributed to her is that she had posted the request for withdrawal of Rs.100/- from the account of Dhanno Devi. She is posted as a Clerk and her only job was to update those documents in their software which were verified by the Senior Manager and were found to be correct. She was neither responsible nor was authorized to check the validity of such documents. Infact the co-accused i.e. Sudarshan Kumar Pahwa posted as Senior Manager had checked the validity of the documents and verified the same, since it was he only, who was authorised to do so in the whole Branch. She was not responsible to verify the signatures as she had only posted the same and not passed. The vouchers was passed by the Senior Manager. Co-accused Sudarshan Kumar Pahwa, Vinod Kkumar Khurana and Prem Kumar Dhingra have already deposited the entire amount of Rs.3.60 lakhs back in the account of Dhanno Devi and even an internal inquiry had been conducted by the bank. The petitioner has no criminal antecedents. She has no role to play in the withdrawal of the money. She is ready and willing to join the investigation. Her custodial interrogation is not required. No recovery is to be effected from her. With these broad submissions, it is, argued that the petitioner deserves to be extended the benefit of anticipatory bail.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature as in connivance with the co- accused, she made the account of deceased Dhanno Devi, active by depositing an amount of Rs.100/- in the said account to make it operative on the basis of forged and false documents, which have also been missing from the record of the bank. For conducting thorough and proper investigation in 3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 25-02-2026 23:54:03 ::: CRM-M-20032-2025 (O&M) -4- the matter, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is must. It is, therefore, stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.
6. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
7. The petitioner has been posted as Clerk in the HDFC bank. The account of deceased Dhanno Devi was made operative by way of impersonation and the amount deposited in the same had been got withdrawn in a fraudulent manner, allegedly in connivance with the bank's Senior Manager and other officials of the same branch including the petitioner. The part that has been attributed to her is that she had made the account active. Obviously, her senior officials were responsible for giving approval for the purpose of making the dormant account operative. It is not the case of the prosecution that it was she, who had to approve the KYC documents, relied upon for the purpose of making the account operative. Given the nature of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, the part attributed to her coupled with the fact that the entire case of the prosecution rests upon documentary evidence, this Court is of the considered opinion that pre-trial incarceration of the petitioner is not required. As such, a case is made out for allowing the present petition.
8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to the condition that she shall surrender before the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer within a period of 15 days from today and shall join the investigation. She shall also join investigation as and when required subsequently. In the event of her arrest, the Investigating/Arresting Officer shall release the petitioner on bail on 4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 25-02-2026 23:54:03 ::: CRM-M-20032-2025 (O&M) -5- furnishing personal as well surety bonds to his/her satisfaction. The petitioner shall also abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNS.
9. It is, however, clarified that nothing stated above shall have any bearing on the merits of the case.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of.
(MANISHA BATRA)
24.02.2026 JUDGE
harjeet
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 25-02-2026 23:54:03 :::