Appeal dismissed — ruling against Rohit Kumar (Petitioner)
In Short
A site supervisor working at an aluminum door factory was accused of being part of a massive cyber fraud and cheating scheme alongside a sales supervisor. The court reviewed bank records showing lakhs of rupees transferred directly into the supervisor's personal accounts and decided not to grant him protection from arrest.
The Parties
Party A: Rohit Kumar
Party B: State of Punjab and Pardeep Singla
Advocates & Judges
For Party A: Learned Advocate Ms. Ekta Sharma
For Party B: Learned Advocate Mr. Yatin Bunger
Judge(s): Hon'ble Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi
What the Case Was About
A factory owner named Pardeep Singla filed a police complaint stating that his company manufactured aluminum doors and employed two men for years: Damanpreet Singh as a sales supervisor and Rohit Kumar as a site supervisor. According to the complaint, Damanpreet collected fifteen lakh rupees from customers but deposited only a small fraction into the company accounts, keeping the rest for himself. The complaint also alleged that Damanpreet used fake documents to transfer a company mobile SIM card into his own name and started redirecting orders to outside parties. When police investigated, they discovered that lakhs of rupees from the embezzled funds had been transferred directly into the personal bank accounts of Rohit Kumar, the site supervisor, leading both men to face criminal charges for cheating and fraud.
Judgment Date
22.09.2026
The Outcome
The court dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail, ruling against the petitioner and finding that custodial interrogation was warranted given the prima facie evidence of financial fraud.
What the Court Looked At
- Considered the initial police complaint detailing how money collected from factory customers was diverted away from the business.
- Examined bank records provided by the police showing that approximately seventeen lakh rupees were transferred from the main accused into the personal bank accounts of the petitioner.
- Rejected the argument that the petitioner was merely following orders from a superior officer while earning a modest salary.
- Noted that receiving large sums of company money into personal accounts does not align with the normal duties of a site supervisor.
- Followed Supreme Court precedent establishing that the lack of a strict requirement for custodial interrogation does not automatically mean an accused person is entitled to anticipatory bail when a serious prima facie case exists.
"The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused."
What This Means For You
This case serves as a powerful warning about the grave dangers of letting coworkers or superiors route business funds through your personal bank accounts. Even if you claim you were just following instructions or acting under the orders of a senior employee, the moment investigators find large amounts of disputed money sitting in your personal accounts, you become a primary target in a criminal investigation. Ordinary employees must maintain strict separation between personal finances and business transactions, and never agree to receive customer payments or company funds into their own accounts. If you find yourself tangled in financial transactions that belong to your employer or a colleague, Setback Solutions can help you understand your situation and coordinate the next steps in plain language without giving legal advice.
You Still Have Options
If you are facing a false FIR, worried about an ongoing cyber crime investigation, or trying to understand your choices after being linked to a financial dispute, it is important to remember that you still have options available. You do not have to navigate the confusion alone, and you can explore second opinions, alternative guidance, or non-judicial support to figure out your next moves. Reach out to Setback Solutions for plain-language help and coordination to understand where you stand and what paths are open to you. Please note that Setback Solutions is not a law firm, does not provide legal advice, and never guarantees specific legal outcomes.