Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2026) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 21077
Decided on: 21.05.2026
Alongwith
SLP (CRL) NO.9787/2026
For Appellant(s):
Mr. Chritarth Palli, AOR, Mr. Agam Aggarwal, Adv.
For Respondent(s):
Ms. Abha Sharma, AOR, Mr. Anupam Maurya, Adv., Mr. Praneet Das, Adv., Mr. Rahul Singh, Adv., Mr. Mandeep Singh Sachdev, Sr. Adv., Ms. Meher Sachdev, Adv., Mrs. Samrata Sachdev, Adv., Mr. Rahul Sharma, Adv., Mr. Pawan Kumar Ray, Adv., Mr. Shreshth Nanda, AOR, Karan Sharma, AOR, Chetan Manchanda, Adv.
***
Anticipatory bail -- Fraudulent opening of bank account -- Allegation that accused fraudulently opened bank account in complainant’s name using Aadhaar Card and PAN Card without consent -- Prosecution case resting primarily on documentary evidence -- Custodial interrogation held not necessary -- Accused entitled to anticipatory bail.
***
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 419, 420, 120-B -- Anticipatory bail -- Impersonation and cheating -- Allegation that appellants used complainant’s Aadhaar Card and PAN Card for opening bank account without consent -- Dispute between close relatives and multiple litigations pending between parties -- Prosecution case based mainly on documentary evidence -- Exact role of accused to be determined during trial on appreciation of evidence -- Custodial interrogation not required -- Orders rejecting anticipatory bail set aside -- Appellants directed to be released on anticipatory bail subject to conditions.
(Paras 4-6)
ORDER
1. Heard.
2. IA No.97357/2026 in SLP (Crl) No.4459/2026 is allowed.
3. Leave granted.
4. The gist of the prosecution case is that the accused who is the sister-in-law of the complainant had opened a bank account fraudulently in the name of the complainant at Kotak Mahindra using his Aadhaar Card and PAN Card that too without his consent. It is alleged that appellant’s husband Vinit Gupta (co-accused) impersonated the complainant and opened the account and deposited certain amounts into the said account. On this amongst, other allegations made in the complaint, FIR No.148/2025 came to be registered against appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
5. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and on perusal of the records, we notice that appellant in the first appeal is the sister-in-law and appellant in the second appeal is the brother of the complainant and there seems to be several litigations pending against each other. As to what was the actual role played by the present appellant in the first appeal, i.e., sister-in-law of the complainant is an issue which will have to be examined by the trial court after considering the evidence that may be tendered by the prosecution. Further, the issue relating to role played by 2nd appellant (who is the husband of 1st appellant) in opening of bank account in the name of the complainant will have to be examined on the basis of evidence that may be tendered by the prosecution.
6. We are of the considered view that custodial interrogation of appellants would not be necessary particularly in the teeth of the prosecution case resting on documentary evidence. As such we are of the considered view that both the appeals deserves to be allowed. Hence, appeals are allowed, impugned orders are set aside and appellants are ordered to be released on anticipatory bail by the Investigating Officer on such terms and conditions as he deems fit to impose including the condition of directing them to cooperate with the investigation by appearing before Investigating Officer whenever called upon and to appear before the trial court on all dates of hearing except when exempted.
7. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Appeals allowed.
********