CRM-M-15594 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT (221) NEHA SHARMA STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab **** MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL) 1. The Section 483 of seeking grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No. 28.11.2024 registered under Sections 406, 420, 120B of IPC at Police Station City Kharar, District SAS Nagar (Mohali). 2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by victims, alleging therein that the petitioner, her husband Shiv Sharma and Vikas Sharma, who were running a company under the name of M/s. amounts of money on the pr Micro Homes and GK Homes. A total amount of Rs.1,91,65,000/ paid by them. However, neither the possession of any either of them nor their money was returned and the petitioner in connivance 15594-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM Date of decision : NEHA SHARMA Versus PUNJAB HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. Amitjot Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab **** MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL) The instant petition has been petition Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) seeking grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No. 28.11.2024 registered under Sections 406, 420, 120B of IPC at Police Station Kharar, District SAS Nagar (Mohali). The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by victims, alleging therein that the petitioner, her husband Shiv Sharma and Vikas Sharma, who were running a company under the name of M/s. Rehaas Properties, had induced them to part with different amounts of money on the premise of sale of apartments in Micro Homes and GK Homes. A total amount of Rs.1,91,65,000/ paid by them. However, neither the possession of any either of them nor their money was returned and the petitioner in connivance IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-15594-2026(O&M) Date of decision : 20.07.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondent HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA , Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab petition filed by the petitioner under Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) seeking grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.399 dated 28.11.2024 registered under Sections 406, 420, 120B of IPC at Police Station The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by victims, alleging therein that the petitioner, her husband Shiv Sharma and Vikas Sharma, who were running a company under the Rehaas Properties, had induced them to part with different emise of sale of apartments in Benipal Homes, Micro Homes and GK Homes. A total amount of Rs.1,91,65,000/- had been paid by them. However, neither the possession of any apartment was given to either of them nor their money was returned and the petitioner in connivance filed by the petitioner under Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) 399 dated 28.11.2024 registered under Sections 406, 420, 120B of IPC at Police Station The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by victims, alleging therein that the petitioner, her husband Shiv Sharma and Vikas Sharma, who were running a company under the Rehaas Properties, had induced them to part with different Benipal Homes, had been apartment was given to either of them nor their money was returned and the petitioner in connivance AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.20 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-15594 with the co-accused had duped them, thereby causing wrongful loss of money to them and then committing offence of cheating. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. Lookout circular was issued against the petitioner as she avoided her arrest and ultimately she was arrested from Chennai Airport on 26.09.2025. Investigation now stands concluded. 3. It is argued by learned counse been falsely implicated in this case on false, frivolous and omnibus allegations, which her account by either of the victims. She is in custody since long. She i required for further investigation. Her involvement in other cases cannot be considered to be a reason for denying benefit of bail to her. She has a permanent abode. There are no chances of her absconding, if extended benefit of bail. She is be extended benefit of bail. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently argued that in connivance with her husband, the petitioner had prepared forged agreement to sell different apartments any such apartment and herself in connivance with each other. There are chances of her committing similar offences or absconding, if extended benefit o a habitual offender. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 15594-2026 (O&M) 2 accused had duped them, thereby causing wrongful loss of money to them and then committing offence of cheating. After registration of FIR, estigation proceedings were initiated. Lookout circular was issued against the petitioner as she avoided her arrest and ultimately she was arrested from Chennai Airport on 26.09.2025. Investigation now stands concluded. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that she has been falsely implicated in this case on false, frivolous and omnibus allegations, which are not specific. No money has her account by either of the victims. She is in custody since long. She i required for further investigation. Her involvement in other cases cannot be considered to be a reason for denying benefit of bail to her. She has a permanent abode. There are no chances of her absconding, if extended benefit of bail. She is not a flight risk. It is, thus, argued that she deserves to be extended benefit of bail. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently argued that in connivance with her husband, the petitioner had prepared forged agreement to sell different apartments to the victims. However any such apartments. A huge amount of money was extracted by her husband and herself in connivance with each other. There are chances of her committing similar offences or absconding, if extended benefit o a habitual offender. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. accused had duped them, thereby causing wrongful loss of money to them and then committing offence of cheating. After registration of FIR, estigation proceedings were initiated. Lookout circular was issued against the petitioner as she avoided her arrest and ultimately she was arrested from Chennai Airport on 26.09.2025. Investigation now stands concluded. l for the petitioner that she has been falsely implicated in this case on false, frivolous and omnibus are not specific. No money has ever been transferred into her account by either of the victims. She is in custody since long. She is not required for further investigation. Her involvement in other cases cannot be considered to be a reason for denying benefit of bail to her. She has a permanent abode. There are no chances of her absconding, if extended a flight risk. It is, thus, argued that she deserves to Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently argued that in connivance with her husband, the petitioner had prepared forged agreement to However, she was never owner of . A huge amount of money was extracted by her husband and herself in connivance with each other. There are chances of her committing similar offences or absconding, if extended benefit of bail. She is a habitual offender. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve accused had duped them, thereby causing wrongful loss of money to them and then committing offence of cheating. After registration of FIR, estigation proceedings were initiated. Lookout circular was issued against the petitioner as she avoided her arrest and ultimately she was arrested from l for the petitioner that she has been falsely implicated in this case on false, frivolous and omnibus ever been transferred into s not required for further investigation. Her involvement in other cases cannot be considered to be a reason for denying benefit of bail to her. She has a permanent abode. There are no chances of her absconding, if extended a flight risk. It is, thus, argued that she deserves to Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently argued that in connivance with her husband, the petitioner had prepared forged agreement to , she was never owner of . A huge amount of money was extracted by her husband and herself in connivance with each other. There are chances of her f bail. She is a habitual offender. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.20 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-15594 5. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. 6. The petitioner is in custody since 03.10.2025. The subject offences are triable by Magistrate. Investigation stands concluded as such her continued incarceration will not serve any fruitful purpose. conclusion of trial in the near future law is that bail is the rule and jail is an exception. Pre should not be replica of post to secure appearance of the accused during trial, an or punitive. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for release on bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed 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. 7. It is made clear that any observation made herein above is onl for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. 8. Since the main petition has been any, is rendered infructuous. 20.07.2026 Amit Sharma 15594-2026 (O&M) 3 This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. The petitioner is in custody since 03.10.2025. The subject offences are triable by Magistrate. Investigation stands concluded as such her continued incarceration will not serve any fruitful purpose. conclusion of trial in the near future are bleak. law is that bail is the rule and jail is an exception. Pre should not be replica of post-conviction sentencing. The object of the jail is to secure appearance of the accused during trial, an Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for release on bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed 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 made clear that any observation made herein above is onl for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. Since the main petition has been any, is rendered infructuous. (MANISHA BATRA) Whether speaking/reasoned:- Whether reportable:- Yes/No This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned The petitioner is in custody since 03.10.2025. The subject offences are triable by Magistrate. Investigation stands concluded as such her continued incarceration will not serve any fruitful purpose. The chances of are bleak. The well settled proposition of law is that bail is the rule and jail is an exception. Pre-trial incarceration conviction sentencing. The object of the jail is to secure appearance of the accused during trial, and it cannot be preventive Taking into consideration 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 allowed 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 It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no Since the main petition has been allowed pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE - Yes/No This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned The petitioner is in custody since 03.10.2025. The subject offences are triable by Magistrate. Investigation stands concluded as such her The chances of of trial incarceration conviction sentencing. The object of the jail is d it cannot be preventive this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for release dered 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 y for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no pending application, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.20 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.