CRM-M-33012- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT (247-1) MAYA DEVI STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Mr. Gautam Kaile, DAG, Haryana MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL) 1. The 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No. under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC (Sections 419, 120B of IPC added later on) at Police Station City Pehowa, District Kurukshetra. 2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by the complainant partnership with one Pankaj Jain was running a firm under Hindustan Rice Seller and White Hill Agro Products at Village Kamoda, District Kurukshetra. For the purpose of expansion of business, they needed some more land at Village Kamoda. Some land existing in front of their plant was lying -2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Versus HARYANA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. Prashant Sethi, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Gautam Kaile, DAG, Haryana **** MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL) The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) in case arising out of FIR No.103 dated 04.05.2023 registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC (Sections 419, 120B of IPC ) at Police Station City Pehowa, District Kurukshetra. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by the complainant-Rajendra Kumar alleging that, he in partnership with one Pankaj Jain was running a firm under Hindustan Rice Seller and White Hill Agro Products at Village Kamoda, District Kurukshetra. For the purpose of expansion of business, they needed some more land at Village Kamoda. Some land existing in front of their plant was lying IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-33012-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 06.07.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondent HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Advocate for the petitioner filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant 103 dated 04.05.2023 registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC (Sections 419, 120B of IPC ) at Police Station City Pehowa, District Kurukshetra. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written Rajendra Kumar alleging that, he in partnership with one Pankaj Jain was running a firm under the name of Hindustan Rice Seller and White Hill Agro Products at Village Kamoda, District Kurukshetra. For the purpose of expansion of business, they needed some more land at Village Kamoda. Some land existing in front of their plant was lying (O&M) 2026 .. Petitioner ...Respondent under Section for grant 103 dated 04.05.2023 registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC (Sections 419, 120B of IPC The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written Rajendra Kumar alleging that, he in the name of Hindustan Rice Seller and White Hill Agro Products at Village Kamoda, District Kurukshetra. For the purpose of expansion of business, they needed some more land at Village Kamoda. Some land existing in front of their plant was lying AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.06 19:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-33012- vacant. On 21.03.2023, accused Sanjeev Kumar who was acquainted with the complainant came to him alongwith accused Krishan Kumar and one female by introducing her as wife of Krishan Kumar and disclosed him that 11 bighas and 19 biswas of land existing in fro name of Simla Devi, mother of K the same, whereupon the complainant and accused Krishan Kumar agreed that the complainant would purchase the said land at the rate of Rs.52 It was agreed that Krishan Kumar would get the said land demarcated before the registration of sale deed. An amount of Rs.1 lakh was given as Krishan Kumar by the complainant and it was agreed that on 22.03.2026 the mother of Krishan Kumar would come for execution of agreement. On that day, Krishan Kumar, Pehowa alongwith an old aged female who was introduced by them as Devi, mother of Krishan Kumar. A cheque fo by the complainant to agreed to be executed on 30.04.2023. 3. As per the allegations, t the land demarcated but by making excus execution of sale deed extended till 30.05.2023. On suspicion having been aroused, his partner Pankaj Jain went to the house of Krishan Kumar on 29.04.2023, wherein the mother of the latter met him and she had not agreed to execute any sale deed nor any money had been received by her and in fact by impersonating her, agreement was got executed by the co -2026 (O&M) 2 On 21.03.2023, accused Sanjeev Kumar who was acquainted with the complainant came to him alongwith accused Krishan Kumar and one female by introducing her as wife of Krishan Kumar and disclosed him that 11 bighas and 19 biswas of land existing in froint of the plant of the complainant was in the Devi, mother of Krishan Kumar and they were whereupon the complainant and accused Krishan Kumar agreed that the complainant would purchase the said land at the rate of Rs.52 It was agreed that Krishan Kumar would get the said land demarcated before the registration of sale deed. An amount of Rs.1 lakh was given as Krishan Kumar by the complainant and it was agreed that on 22.03.2026 the of Krishan Kumar would come for execution of agreement. On that day, , his wife and Sanjeev Kumar came to the tehsil premises Pehowa alongwith an old aged female who was introduced by them as Devi, mother of Krishan Kumar. A cheque for a sum of Rs.42 lakh was given by the complainant to Simla Devi. Further earnest money and sale deed was agreed to be executed on 30.04.2023. As per the allegations, the complainant asked Krishan Kumar to get the land demarcated but by making excuses, he did not do so and got the date of execution of sale deed extended till 30.05.2023. On suspicion having been aroused, his partner Pankaj Jain went to the house of Krishan Kumar on 29.04.2023, wherein the mother of the latter met him and she had not agreed to execute any sale deed nor any money had been received by her and in fact by impersonating her, agreement was got executed by the co On 21.03.2023, accused Sanjeev Kumar who was acquainted with the complainant came to him alongwith accused Krishan Kumar and one female by introducing her as wife of Krishan Kumar and disclosed him that 11 bighas and the plant of the complainant was in the shan Kumar and they were interested to sell whereupon the complainant and accused Krishan Kumar agreed that the complainant would purchase the said land at the rate of Rs.52 lakh per acre. It was agreed that Krishan Kumar would get the said land demarcated before the registration of sale deed. An amount of Rs.1 lakh was given as token money to Krishan Kumar by the complainant and it was agreed that on 22.03.2026 the of Krishan Kumar would come for execution of agreement. On that day, his wife and Sanjeev Kumar came to the tehsil premises, Pehowa alongwith an old aged female who was introduced by them as Simla r a sum of Rs.42 lakh was given Devi. Further earnest money and sale deed was he complainant asked Krishan Kumar to get es, he did not do so and got the date of execution of sale deed extended till 30.05.2023. On suspicion having been aroused, his partner Pankaj Jain went to the house of Krishan Kumar on 29.04.2023, wherein the mother of the latter met him and it was revealed that she had not agreed to execute any sale deed nor any money had been received by her and in fact by impersonating her, agreement was got executed by the co- On 21.03.2023, accused Sanjeev Kumar who was acquainted with the complainant came to him alongwith accused Krishan Kumar and one female by introducing her as wife of Krishan Kumar and disclosed him that 11 bighas and the plant of the complainant was in the to sell whereupon the complainant and accused Krishan Kumar agreed that . It was agreed that Krishan Kumar would get the said land demarcated before the money to Krishan Kumar by the complainant and it was agreed that on 22.03.2026 the of Krishan Kumar would come for execution of agreement. On that day, , Simla r a sum of Rs.42 lakh was given Devi. Further earnest money and sale deed was he complainant asked Krishan Kumar to get es, he did not do so and got the date of execution of sale deed extended till 30.05.2023. On suspicion having been aroused, his partner Pankaj Jain went to the house of Krishan Kumar on that she had not agreed to execute any sale deed nor any money had been received - AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.06 19:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-33012- accused. By alleging that the complainant had been duped at the hands of the above-named acc 4. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. It was revealed that the present petitioner by posing herself as mother of accused Krishan Kumar has impersonated herself the co-accused. She was nominated as accused. Some other persons were also nominated as such. The petitioner was arrested on 23.12.2025. She was interrogated and suffered disclosure statement admitting her involvement in the crime. Investigation now stands concluded. 5. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that she has been falsely implicated in this case. An amount of Rs.42 lakh was deposited in the joint bank account of and no amount of money, whatsoever, had been received by the petitioner in her bank account. She is not beneficiary of any transaction. She is in custody since long. The co-accused Sanjeev and Rajesh have On parity, she too deserves to be extended the same benefit. She is an old lady suffering from various ailments. No recovery has been effected from her. Trial will take considerable time to conclude. The subject off by Magistrate. Her further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. It is, therefore, argued that she deserves to be released on bail and the petition deserves to be allowed. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel while relying report, has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are quite serious in -2026 (O&M) 3 accused. By alleging that the complainant had been duped at the hands of the named accused, he prayed for taking action in the matter. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. It was revealed that the present petitioner by posing herself as mother of accused Krishan Kumar has impersonated herself accused. She was nominated as accused. Some other persons were also nominated as such. The petitioner was arrested on 23.12.2025. She was interrogated and suffered disclosure statement admitting her involvement in the Investigation now stands concluded. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that she has been falsely implicated in this case. An amount of Rs.42 lakh was deposited in the joint bank account of Simla Devi and her son Krishan Kumar i.e. co and no amount of money, whatsoever, had been received by the petitioner in her bank account. She is not beneficiary of any transaction. She is in custody since accused Sanjeev and Rajesh have On parity, she too deserves to be extended the same benefit. She is an old lady suffering from various ailments. No recovery has been effected from her. Trial will take considerable time to conclude. The subject off by Magistrate. Her further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. It is, therefore, argued that she deserves to be released on bail and the petition deserves to be allowed. Per contra, learned State counsel while relying has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are quite serious in accused. By alleging that the complainant had been duped at the hands of the used, he prayed for taking action in the matter. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. It was revealed that the present petitioner by posing herself as Simla Devi, mother of accused Krishan Kumar has impersonated herself in connivance with accused. She was nominated as accused. Some other persons were also nominated as such. The petitioner was arrested on 23.12.2025. She was interrogated and suffered disclosure statement admitting her involvement in the It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that she has been falsely implicated in this case. An amount of Rs.42 lakh was deposited in the Devi and her son Krishan Kumar i.e. co-accused and no amount of money, whatsoever, had been received by the petitioner in her bank account. She is not beneficiary of any transaction. She is in custody since accused Sanjeev and Rajesh have been extended benefit of bail. On parity, she too deserves to be extended the same benefit. She is an old-aged lady suffering from various ailments. No recovery has been effected from her. Trial will take considerable time to conclude. The subject offences are triable by Magistrate. Her further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. It is, therefore, argued that she deserves to be released on bail and the petition Per contra, learned State counsel while relying upon the status has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are quite serious in accused. By alleging that the complainant had been duped at the hands of the After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. Devi, in connivance with accused. She was nominated as accused. Some other persons were also nominated as such. The petitioner was arrested on 23.12.2025. She was interrogated and suffered disclosure statement admitting her involvement in the It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that she has been falsely implicated in this case. An amount of Rs.42 lakh was deposited in the accused and no amount of money, whatsoever, had been received by the petitioner in her bank account. She is not beneficiary of any transaction. She is in custody since been extended benefit of bail. aged lady suffering from various ailments. No recovery has been effected from her. ences are triable by Magistrate. Her further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. It is, therefore, argued that she deserves to be released on bail and the petition upon the status has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are quite serious in AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.06 19:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-33012- nature as in connivance with the co Simla Devi, mother of the accused which was agreed to be sold to the complainant. She in connivance with the co accused had extracted an amount of Rs.43 lakhs from the complainant. Simply because the amount of Rs.42 lakhs was deposited in the joint bank account of co-accused Krishan Kumar and to be innocent. She had taken sum of Rs.1 lakh from the co purpose of committing the subject offences. The case of co parity with her case. Trial is going on at a proper record to show that there would be any undue delay in conclusion of the same. It is, therefore, stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 7. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. 8. The petitioner by conniving with the co committed the offences of cheating by impersonating herself as She also facilitated the co sum of Rs.43 lakhs. The allegations prima facie make out a case for commission of subject offences as against her, however, she has now been in custody since 23.12.2025 prosecution witne serve any fruitful purpose. rule and jail is an exception. Pre post-conviction sentencing. T accused during trial, and it cannot be preventive or punitive. -2026 (O&M) 4 nature as in connivance with the co-accused, she had impersonated herself as Devi, mother of the accused-Krishan Kumar and owner of the property was agreed to be sold to the complainant. She in connivance with the co accused had extracted an amount of Rs.43 lakhs from the complainant. Simply because the amount of Rs.42 lakhs was deposited in the joint bank account of accused Krishan Kumar and his mother, the petitioner cannot be considered to be innocent. She had taken sum of Rs.1 lakh from the co purpose of committing the subject offences. The case of co parity with her case. Trial is going on at a proper record to show that there would be any undue delay in conclusion of the same. It is, therefore, stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. The petitioner by conniving with the co committed the offences of cheating by impersonating herself as She also facilitated the co-accused in inducing the complainant to p sum of Rs.43 lakhs. The allegations prima facie make out a case for commission of subject offences as against her, however, she has now been in since 23.12.2025. Trial is still likely to take time as only 06 out of 17 prosecution witnesses have been examined. Her continued detention would not serve any fruitful purpose. The well settled proposition rule and jail is an exception. Pre-trial incarceration should not be replica of conviction sentencing. The object of the jail is to secure appearance of the accused during trial, and it cannot be preventive or punitive. accused, she had impersonated herself as Krishan Kumar and owner of the property was agreed to be sold to the complainant. She in connivance with the co- accused had extracted an amount of Rs.43 lakhs from the complainant. Simply because the amount of Rs.42 lakhs was deposited in the joint bank account of his mother, the petitioner cannot be considered to be innocent. She had taken sum of Rs.1 lakh from the co-accused for the purpose of committing the subject offences. The case of co-accused is not at parity with her case. Trial is going on at a proper pace and there is nothing on record to show that there would be any undue delay in conclusion of the same. It is, therefore, stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel The petitioner by conniving with the co-accused, is alleged to have committed the offences of cheating by impersonating herself as Simla Devi. accused in inducing the complainant to part with a sum of Rs.43 lakhs. The allegations prima facie make out a case for commission of subject offences as against her, however, she has now been in . Trial is still likely to take time as only 06 out of 17 sses have been examined. Her continued detention would not proposition of law is that bail is the trial incarceration should not be replica of he object of the jail is to secure appearance of the accused during trial, and it cannot be preventive or punitive. Keeping in view accused, she had impersonated herself as Krishan Kumar and owner of the property - accused had extracted an amount of Rs.43 lakhs from the complainant. Simply because the amount of Rs.42 lakhs was deposited in the joint bank account of his mother, the petitioner cannot be considered accused for the accused is not at pace and there is nothing on record to show that there would be any undue delay in conclusion of the same. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel is alleged to have Devi. art with a sum of Rs.43 lakhs. The allegations prima facie make out a case for commission of subject offences as against her, however, she has now been in . Trial is still likely to take time as only 06 out of 17 sses have been examined. Her continued detention would not of law is that bail is the trial incarceration should not be replica of he object of the jail is to secure appearance of the Keeping in view AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.06 19:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-33012- the above discussed facts, petitioner has made out a case for release on b allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to h furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. 9. It is, however, clarified that the observations made above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial in any manner. 10. Since the main petition has any, is rendered infructuous. 06.07.2026 Amit Sharma -2026 (O&M) 5 the above discussed facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for release on bail. Accordingly, the petition is and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to h furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. It is, however, clarified that the observations made above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial in any manner. Since the main petition has been allowed, any, is rendered infructuous. (MANISHA BATRA) Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No this Court is of the considered opinion that the ail. Accordingly, the petition is and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to her furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. It is, however, clarified that the observations made above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial in any manner. allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No this Court is of the considered opinion that the ail. Accordingly, the petition is er furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial It is, however, clarified that the observations made above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the case pending application, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.06 19:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.