CRM-M-1952-2025 101 + 204 (1st case) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-1952-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 01.05.2025 Meenu Sehgal ..Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU Present: Mr. Ramnish Puri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Shukla, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Arun Kaundal, Advocate for the complainant. MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU, J. CRM-17167-2025 Application has been filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for placing on record zimini orders (P-16). Notice of the application to the non-applicant. Mr. Amit Shukla, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab and Mr. Arun Kaundal, Advocate, accept notice on behalf of respondent and de facto complainant, respectively. They both raise no objection in case the application is allowed. In view of above and for the averments mentioned in the application, the same is allowed as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions and zimini orders (P-16) are taken on record. Registry to do the needful. -1- DIWAKER GULATI 2025.05.03 13:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-1952-2025 CRM-M-1952-2025 Present petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the B.N.S.S.’) has been filed for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in FIR No.229 dated 19.12.2024, under Sections 420 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’), registered at Police Station Civil Lines Amritsar, District Amritsar. (2) Allegations are that petitioner along with co-accused has prepared the fake and fabricated pedigree table (kursinama). (3) Learned counsel contends that petitioner was granted interim bail by this Court, vide order dated 29.01.2025 and in pursuance thereof, she has already joined the investigation; hence, her custodial interrogation is not required. (4) Learned State counsel, on instructions from the quarter concerned, acknowledged the above factual position, and submits that as on today, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. (5) However, learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the prayer on the premise that petitioner prepared forged and fabricated pedigree table (kursinama). Thus, she does not deserve the concession of pre-arrest bail. (6) Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book. -2- DIWAKER GULATI 2025.05.03 13:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-1952-2025 (7) It transpires that petitioner was granted interim bail by this Court, vide order dated 29.01.2025 and the order reads as under:- “Short reply dated 21.01.2025 by way of an affidavit of Mr. Arvind Meena, IPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police, North, Amritsar has been filed on behalf of respondent-State, which is taken on record. Copy supplied to the other side. Registry to tag the same at appropriate place. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that 06 civil suits are pending between the parties. Let status of all civil suits be brought on record. Posted for 12.03.2025. In the meanwhile, petitioner shall join investigation before the Investigating Officer, but she be not arrested till the next date of hearing.” (8) It is duly acknowledged by learned State Counsel that in pursuance of the aforesaid order, petitioner has joined investigation and her custodial interrogation is not required. (9) The objection raised by learned counsel for the complainant is not acceptable for the reason that the allegation of preparing any pedigree table would be a matter of trial. (10) In view of the above, there is no justification to deny the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Consequently, present petition is allowed; interim order dated 29.01.2025 is made absolute subject to the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. -3- DIWAKER GULATI 2025.05.03 13:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-1952-2025 (11) It is also made clear that petitioner shall fully co-operate with the Investigating Officer as and when called for further investigation. (12) The above observations be not construed as an expression of opinion on merits of the case; rather confined only to decide the bail matter. (13) It is also clarified that in case of any recurrence on the part of petitioner, State would be at liberty to move an appropriate application for recalling of this order. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. 01.05.2025 (MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU) d.gulati JUDGE Whether speaking / reasoned : Yes No Whether Reportable : Yes No -4- DIWAKER GULATI 2025.05.03 13:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document