Authority: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra, Punjab High Court

Order Date: 09.07.2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioner Harbans Singh vs. State of Punjab (Respondent).
  • Petition: Filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking anticipatory bail.
  • FIR Details: FIR No.7 dated 13.02.2025 registered at Police Station Talwandi Bhai, District Ferozepur under IPC Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471.
  • Allegations: The manager of Punjab National Bank, Talwandi Bhai branch, alleged that the petitioner, sharing the same name and father's name as the genuine account holder, used the original holder’s PAN card to withdraw Rs 1,07,000 in cash from savings account No.00972010009360.
  • Subsequent Transactions: On 12.03.2024, petitioner claimed four Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) were misplaced, submitted indemnity bonds, and obtained duplicate FDRs. The total FDR amount of Rs 10,78,656 was transferred to the original account holder’s savings account, while Rs 8,76,000 was credited to the petitioner’s own PNB account (Branch Bhagta Bhai Ka, Ferozepur). He also withdrew Rs 2,00,000 in cash on the same day.
  • Bank’s Action: The bank demanded repayment of Rs 11,85,656. Upon refusal, a reverse entry was made, crediting the amount back to the original account holder, leaving Rs 3,16,249 still payable by the petitioner, which he also refused.
  • Legal History: The petitioner’s anticipatory bail application was earlier dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur on 15.04.2025.
  • Petitioner’s Argument: Claimed he was an illiterate, elderly individual who, based on bank officials’ advice, believed the account belonged to him, submitted Aadhar and PAN, and was unaware of any impersonation.
  • State’s Argument: Emphasised seriousness of the fraud, the amount recoverable (Rs 3,16,249), and the necessity of custodial interrogation for thorough investigation.

Final Outcome

  • The Court held that anticipatory bail is granted only in exceptional circumstances, none of which were demonstrated.
  • Custodial interrogation was deemed essential for the investigation.
  • Consequently, the anticipatory bail petition was dismissed.
  • The Court clarified that its observations are limited to the present petition and do not affect the merits of the underlying case.
  • Any pending applications related to the petition are rendered infructuous.

Topics: Anticipatory Bail, Bank Fraud