₹50 Crore Investment Scam: Punjab & Haryana HC Rejects Anticipatory Bail Plea of HR Manager Accused of Luring Funds of Employees and Public [Read Order]

The FIR, registered in April 2023 at Police Station Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar, accuses Sharmeen Abdul Majid Ansari along with co-accused Jasmeet Singh @ Kamal Singh and Pranav Tyagi of luring investors with promises of high returns by projecting the company as a trusted platform engaged in bulk purchasing from manufacturers and selling products online at competitive prices.

The complainant, Abhinav Seth, alleged that on the strength of such assurances, he and several others, including company employees and members of the public, invested substantial sums. However, by April 2023, the company abruptly shut down operations and its promoters allegedly absconded, leaving investors defrauded of nearly ₹50 crore.

How to Compute Income from Salary with Tax Planning, Click Here

During the investigation, some accused persons were arrested and a challan was filed against them. Ansari, however, evaded arrest and was placed in Column 2 of the charge sheet. Proceedings to declare her a proclaimed offender have also been initiated.

The petitioner approached the trial court seeking protection from arrest which rejected her anticipatory bail application in June 2025, leading to the present petition before the High Court.

Ansari’s counsel argued that she was merely the HR Manager of the company with no involvement in financial dealings, investments, or operations concerning public funds. Her role, it was contended, was confined to routine administrative functions like maintaining staff records, preparing attendance sheets, and disbursing salaries.

She neither operated the company’s bank accounts nor was a signatory to any agreements. It was further submitted that she was suffering from tuberculosis, required medical rest, and posed no risk of tampering with evidence, said the counsel.

Want a deeper insight into the Income Tax Bill, 2025? Click here

The State, however, strongly opposed the petition, arguing that Ansari was one of the masterminds of the fraudulent scheme and had been evading arrest for a long time. The prosecution stressed that her custodial interrogation was essential for uncovering the larger conspiracy and securing evidence, given the gravity of the allegations and the scale of public loss involved.

After hearing both sides, the Court held that the accusations were serious in nature and involved defrauding a large number of investors.

Justice Batra observed that anticipatory bail cannot be granted as a matter of routine and is an extraordinary remedy reserved for exceptional circumstances.

Since proceedings had already been initiated to declare the petitioner a proclaimed offender and no exceptional grounds were made out, the Court dismissed her plea, emphasizing that custodial interrogation was necessary for effective investigation.

The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the question of anticipatory bail and would not prejudice the merits of the ongoing trial.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscanpremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates