CRM-M-29187-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 246 CRM-M-29187-2026 (O&M) Date of decision:14.07.2026 Geetika Chawla ... Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Senior Advocate with Mr. Deepinder Singh, Advocate and Ms. Simerpreet Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana. ... Manisha Batra, J. (Oral). 1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking benefit of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.391, dated 29.10.2025, registered under Section 22 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 and Sections 319(2), 217, 248(b), 3(5), 61(2), 318(4), 340, 335(3), 308(6), 238(c), 308(2), 308(7), 338 of the BNS (offences punishable under Section 4 of POCSO Act and Sections 137, 351(3) of the BNS were deleted lateron), at Police Station Sector-65, Gurugram. 2. The aforementioned FIR was initially registered under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and Sections 137 and 351(3) of the BNS on the basis of a complaint which was submitted by the complainant while HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.14 19:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-29187-2026 (O&M) -2- disclosing his name as Rohit and by alleging that some days back, he along with his wife and son was sitting on the side of the road when one person, who disclosed his name as Vishal came in his car. The complainant's son asked some money to the said Vishal but he told that he would bear the educational expenses of his son and would also provide him some employment. On asking of the said Vishal, the complainant had let his son sit in his car to roam around. However, the said Vishal did not return for a while along with his son. The complainant started searching for his son and found the above named Vishal while committing some wrong acts with his son. He had also noted down the registration number of the said vehicle and prayed for taking action in the matter. 3. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. It was revealed that the complainant was in fact known by the name of Hanuman @ Rohit. He was having criminal antecedents. Vishal Aggarwal named in the complaint was joined into investigation and it transpired that on the fateful day, he along with his family members was present at some hotel and then in cyber hub and therefore, could not have committed the subject offences at the relevant time. It also transpired that Jyoti wife of Hanuman had got a rape case registered against one Vishal Kaushik in the past, which was found to be false. It was further revealed that wife of Hanuman had sent messages to a particular cell phone number on 28.10.2025 and those messages were found to be sent to the present petitioner. The investigation further revealed that the petitioner in connivance with the above named Hanuman, who was nominated as accused and one more person, namely, Nikhil had been involved in HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.14 19:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-29187-2026 (O&M) -3- extortion of money and by extending threats had made call to one Gaurav Bajaj with an intent to extort money. The petitioner was nominated as accused. During further investigation, offences under Sections 137(2), 351(3) of the BNS and Section 6 of the POCSO Act were deleted whereas offence under Section 22 of the POCSO Act and under Sections 217, 248(B), 319(2) and 3(5) of the BNS were added. Accused Rohit @ Hanuman and Jyoti were arrested. They suffered disclosure statements admitting their involvement in the case. The petitioner was arrested on 14.11.2025. She too suffered disclosure statement admitting her complicity in the crime. A huge amount of money, several sim cards, mobile phones, pen drives, hard discs and one laptop were recovered from their house. In the meanwhile, Vishal, who was named as accused in the FIR filed by accused Hanuman (Rohit) also joined into investigation. It was revealed that his wife was also involved in the occurrence. She was taken into custody and suffered disclosure statement as per which, she has been paid a sum of Rs.10 lakhs by the present petitioner for the purpose of implicating her husband in some case. Investigation now stands completed. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that she has been falsely implicated in this case. She has been charge sheeted for the commission of offences punishable under Section 22 of the BNSS read with Section 61(2) of the BNS read with Section 61(2) of BNS and alternatively Section 217 of the BNS. Both these offences are bailable in nature. Most of other offences for which she has been charge sheeted are also bailable in nature. The ingredients for commission of offences HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.14 19:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-29187-2026 (O&M) -4- punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 308(2) and 337 of the BNS are not attracted qua her. These offences are triable by the Magistrate only. She is in custody for a period of over 07 months. She is not required for further investigation as the same stands concluded. There are no chances of conclusion of trial in near future. Her involvement in another case cannot be considered to be a reason for denying benefit of bail to her. She is ready to abide by the terms and conditions for grant of bail. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel, while relying upon the status report has vehemently argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature as she in conspiracy with her husband had orchestrated a scheme to file false criminal complaints including a case under the provisions of the POCSO Act as against innocent persons. Her antecedents are not clean as one more case of similar nature has been registered against her. She had received monetary benefits out of illegal activities. She in connivance with the co-accused had arranged forged identity documents, sim cards under fictitious names. There are chances of her committing similar offences, if extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, argued that she does not deserve to be extended the benefit of bail. 6. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 7. The petitioner in connivance with her husband Harsh @ Satbir is alleged to have conspired with the co-accused Shivani wife of Vishal and co-accused Hanuman (Rohit) and in pursuance of that HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.14 19:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-29187-2026 (O&M) -5- conspiracy, is further alleged to have actively participated in getting an FIR registered through co-accused Hanuman, who impersonated himself as Rohit. He is alleged to have done so to extort money. Her involvement in another case has also been established. The allegations make out a prima facie case for commission of subject offences as against her. However, she is in custody since 15.11.2025. She is obviously not required for further investigation. The trial has commenced, however, no prosecution witness has been examined so far and will obviously take time to conclude. It is well settled proposition of law is that pre-trial incarceration should not be replica of post-conviction sentencing and bail is the rule and jail is an exception. The object of the jail is to secure appearance of the accused during trial, and it cannot be preventive or punitive. In view of the above discussed facts, 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 on her furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned, and subject to the conditions that she shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case. She shall appear before the learned trial Court on each and every date of hearing except when her presence has been exempted by the trial Court. She shall surrender her passport, if any, furnish details of her cell phone and Aadhaar card, and shall not change her mobile number(s) and shall keep her mobile phone switch on all times during the pendency of the trial. She shall provide her address where she would be residing after release and shall not change the same without informing the concerned IO/SHO. She shall visit HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.14 19:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-29187-2026 (O&M) -6- the Police Station concerned on the first Monday of every alternative month during the trial of the case. 8. Breach of any of the above conditions shall be a ground for cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner. 9. It is 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 already been disposed of, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous. (MANISHA BATRA) 14.07.2026 JUDGE harjeet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.14 19:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document