CRM-M-67282- IN THE H (122) NARINDER KAU STATE OF PUNJ CORAM: HON Present: Mr. Ms. S MANISHA BATR 1. The Section 483 of Bh for grant of regul registered under S Station City Jagrao 2. The a complaint submit alongwith his bro Jagraon, District L petitioner by conn -2025 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH R KAUR PUREWAL Versus PUNJAB HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS Sandeep Kumar Tada, Advocate Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab **** BATRA, J. (ORAL) The instant petition has been prefe of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanh regular bail in case arising out of F nder Sections 420, 120B, 465, 467, 4 Jagraon, District Ludhiana Rural. The aforementioned FIR was registe submitted by the complainant Varin is brother owned 08 acres of land i strict Ludhiana. He had come to know y conniving with the co-accused Bind JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH CRM-M-67282-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 24.03.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondent ANISHA BATRA ocate for the petitioner preferred by the petitioner under a Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) ut of FIR No.175 dated 19.08.2024 467, 468 and 471 of IPC at Police registered on the basis of a written Varinder Singh, alleging that he land in Village Bir Akhara, Tehsil know from reliable sources that the d Binder Singh, Sukhwinder Singh, M) 2026 oner dent nder SS”) 2024 olice ritten t he ehsil t the ingh, AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.25 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-67282- Kamaljit Singh, Pa persons, had prepa the land owned by on the basis of f complainant. He h engaged in the bu them married to so as other fabricated were conducted a petitioner alongwi public persons by proposal of marry public persons on Parminder Singh Amandeep Kaur w had come forwar Amandeep Kaur proposals of marry victim/victims and identified by the v was revealed that aadhar card and h forged agreement -2025 (O&M) 2 gh, Parminder Singh and Amandeep K prepared a written agreement to sell ned by the complainant and his brothe s of forged and fabricated documen t. He had also come to know that all t the business of cheating innocent peo d to some NRI girl and on the basis o ricated documents. On receipt of the c cted and report was submitted on 0 longwith the co-accused was indulge ons by getting advertisements issued marrying NRI girl and had been ex ns on that premise and then fleeing w ingh was arrested on 21.10.2024. T Kaur were arrested on 27.11.2024. M orward and filed complaints allegin Kaur as an NRI, the petitioner and f marrying accused Amandeep Kaur w ms and then had extracted money fro y the victims. The co-accused were d that accused Jagtar Singh had prepar and had impersonated the complaina ment to sell. Investigation now stands deep Kaur as well as some unknown to sell dated 21.08.2023, for sale of brother to Manpreet Singh Dhaliwal, cuments and by impersonating the at all the above-named persons were nt people, on the premise of getting basis of fake passports, visas as well f the complaint, inquiry proceedings on 08.08.2024, as per which, the ndulged in cheating and defrauding issued in the newspapers regarding en extracting lakhs of rupees from eing with that money. The accused 24. The petitioner and co-accused 24. Meanwhile, some other victims alleging that by projecting accused er and the co-accused were giving aur with the family members of the ey from them. The petitioner was were also arrested subsequently. It prepared a forged agreement to sell, lainant, at the time of signing the stands concluded. own f iwal, the were tting well ngs , the ding rding from used used tims used iving f the was y. It , g the AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.25 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-67282- 3. It is a falsely implicated been collected to s in question. There of execution of th basis of the agree money has been tr agreement to sell. time to conclude. registered against triable by Magistr custody anymore. allowed. 4. Per c report has vehem serious in nature. There are chances bail. It is, therefor 5. This C for the parties at c 6. The p made an attempt t and fabricated agr -2025 (O&M) 3 It is argued by learned counsel for th icated in this case on fake and general ed to show that she had any hand in p There is nothing to show that the pet of the alleged agreement. No sale d eement. She was not the benefic been transferred in her bank account in o sell. She is in custody since long. T clude. She has been acquitted in m gainst him and is on bail in other cas agistrate. No useful purpose would more. It is, therefore, stressed tha Per contra, learned State counsel w vehemently argued that the allegatio ature. She has been involved in 22 c hances of her committing similar off erefore, stressed that the petition does This Court has heard the rival submis es at considerable length. The petitioner in connivance with the empt to cheat the complainant Varinde ed agreement to sell his property in f l for the petitioner that she has been eneral allegations. No evidence has d in preparation of agreement to sell the petitioner was present at the time sale deed had been executed on the eneficiary of any transaction, as no ount in the transaction of the alleged ong. The trial will take considerable d in most of the cases which were her cases. The subject offences are ould be served by detaining him in ed that the petition deserves to be nsel while relying upon the status legations against the petitioner are in 22 cases of cheating and forgery. ilar offences, if extended benefit of n does not deserve to be allowed. ubmissions made by learned counsel ith the co-accused is alleged to have arinder Singh by preparing a forged ty in favour of one Manpreet Singh been e has sell time n the s no eged rable were s are m in o be tatus r are y. it of unsel have rged ingh AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.25 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-67282- Dhaliwal. Though of subject offenc 27.11.2024. The Magistrate. The prosecution witne law is that bail is t not be replica of p appearance of the Taking into consi make any commen any manner, the p on bail, subject to the learned trial Co 7. In the petitioner, it shall application seekin 8. Since any, is rendered in 24.03.2026 Amit Sharma -2025 (O&M) 4 hough the allegations make out a pri offences against her, however, she The offences for which she has The trial will take considerable witness has been examined so far. ail is the rule and jail is an exception. ca of post-conviction sentencing. The of the accused during trial, and it can consideration the above discussed mments on the merits of the case lest , the petition is allowed and the petiti ject to his furnishing personal and sure trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/D In the event of there being any FIR t shall be open to the respondent-State seeking cancellation of bail. Since the main petition has been all ered infructuous. (MA Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes Whether reportable:- Yes/No prima facie case for commission r, she has been in custody since e has been booked are triable by e time to conclude since no far. The well settled proposition of ption. Pre-trial incarceration should . The object of the jail is to secure it cannot be preventive or punitive. ssed facts but without meaning to se lest the same prejudice the trial in petitioner is ordered to be released nd surety bonds to the satisfaction of trate/Duty Magistrate concerned. y FIR/complaint lodged against the State to seek redressal by filing an allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No ssion since e by e no of ould cure itive. g to ial in ased on of t the g an n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.25 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.