CRM-M- 3387 IN THE (223) RAKHI DEVI STATE OF HA CORAM: HO Present: Mr Mr *** MANISHA BA 1. Th 483 of Bharati grant of regula registered under Station Saran, D 2. As Pal Verma had against him. Su and marriage b divorce passed munshi/clerk of family during th after conclusion visiting the com 33876-2026 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH CR Da DEVI Versus HARYANA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MAN Mr. Aakash Rana, Advocate for the Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana **** A BATRA, J. (ORAL) The instant petition has been filed b haratiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, regular bail in case arising out of F under Sections 120B, 384, 406, 420, aran, District Faridabad. As per the allegations, Arun Verma a had a matrimonial dispute with his im. Subsequently, the said matrimonia iage between his son and his wife w assed on 31.03.2018. The accused R lerk of the advocate who was engage ring the course of the abovementione clusion of the said litigation, accuse he complainant and his family memb JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH CRM-M-33876-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 18.08.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondent MANISHA BATRA for the petitioner aryana filed by the petitioner under Section nhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for t of FIR No.499 dated 28.08.2024 , 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC at Police Verma, son of the complainant Inder ith his wife. An FIR was registered imonial dispute was amicably settled wife was dissolved by a decree of sed Roop Singh was working as a ngaged by the complainant and his tioned matrimonial litigation. Even accused Roop Singh had continued members and gradually gained their ction for 2024 ice Inder tered ed e of as a d his Even nued their AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.19 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M- 3387 confidence. He after completing 3. As jewellery shop that former wife regard to the pre legal action was sent to jail. He in this Court fo He also allured compensation f pretext, he secu on several blan about the techn Singh, the com However, even they would be counsel and had further that an o the tune of Rs.3 much more com the complainant 33876-2026 (O&M) 2 e. He represented to them that he had pleting his law degree. As per the further allegations, the a shop of the complainant as on 04.09 er wife of his son had initiated some li the previous matrimonial dispute and on was not taken, the complainant and il. He assured the complainant to get s for the purpose of defending his allured the complainant to institute tion from his daughter-in-law and he e secured the signatures of the compla l blank or typed papers as well as technicalities of law and while repos e complainant and his family memb ven subsequently, the accused Ro be entangled in other litigations a nd had moved petition for grant of com at an order had been passed by this C f Rs.35 lakhs in favour of the complai re compensation could be given to th lainant and his family members. he had become a practising advocate s, the accused Roop Singh visited the 04.09.2018 and represented to him ome litigation before this Court with e and also told him that if immediate nt and his family members would be to get some senior advocate engaged ng his family members and himself. stitute proceedings for recovery of and her family members and on that complainant and his family members ell as Vakalatnama. Being unaware reposing faith on the accused Roop members had signed such papers. ed Roop Singh kept on telling that tions and also that he had engaged of compensation in their favour and is Court granting compensation to omplainant and then by inducing that n to them, he extracted money from cate d the him with diate ld be aged self. y of that bers ware oop pers. that aged r and on to that from AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.19 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M- 3387 4. As represented that amount to Rs.5 money from th complainant we got signed by th amount of Rs. members by complainant as Singh made on amounts of mon Rs.2,53,26,850/ the guise of pur also instilled fe Ultimately, whe about the fate started avoiding having been aris representations had cheated him false and fabric prayed for takin 5. Aft initiated. It wa 33876-2026 (O&M) 3 As per the further allegations, ed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court ha Rs.5 crores in favour of the com om the complainant. The signatures ant were taken and several blank pape d by the complainant even subsequent of Rs.40 lakhs was extracted from by the above named accused R ant asked about the amount of com ade one or the other excuse and he of money from 2021 to 2023 also and 6,850/- was extracted by Roop Singh of pursuing fictitious judicial proceed lled fear in the mind of the complain y, when the accused Roop Singh did fate of the litigations initiated on b oiding him and even stopped taking hi en arisen, the complainant made inqui ations as made by the accused Roop S ted him by duping him of huge amou fabricated documents of judicial pro r taking action in the matter. After registration of FIR, inv It was revealed that the complainant ns, accused Roop Singh further ourt had enhanced the compensation e complainant and again extracted tures and fingerprints of son of the k papers and stamp papers etc. were equently also and in this manner, an from the complainant/his family sed Roop Singh. Whenever the f compensation, the accused Roop nd he kept on extracting different lso and an amount of approximately Singh from the complainant under roceedings. The accused Roop Singh mplainant and his family members. did not give any satisfactory reply on behalf of the complainant and king his telephone calls, on suspicion inquiries and came to know that the oop Singh were totally false and he amount of money and by showing ial proceedings to him. As such, he , investigation proceedings were ainant had made payment of money rther ation acted f the were r, an mily the oop erent ately nder ingh bers. reply and icion t the d he wing h, he were oney AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.19 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M- 3387 to the accused channels. On ch deposited by the in different ban whom was the Devi, Abhishek He suffered dis in the crime an into bank accou Accused Gudia instance of the lakhs into her accused Roop S admitted that an and was transfe 6. In Ruvi Devi and disclosed that it of money in th nominated as ad concluded. 7. It i been falsely imp 33876-2026 (O&M) 4 ccused Roop Singh not only in cas On checking the account statements, by the complainant had been got trans nt bank accounts maintained by himse as the present petitioner and also the hishek and Surender Kumar. The accu ed disclosure statement on interrogati me and about transfer of substantial p account of Gudia Devi, petitioner, A Gudia Devi was arrested on 27.12.20 of the petitioner, she had permitted c o her bank account which were tran oop Singh. The petitioner was arrest that an amount of Rs.20 lakhs was c ransferred at the instance of accused R In their statements so suffered, acc i and the petitioner, wife of the nephe that it was on the asking of Ruvi Devi in their respective banks accounts d as additional accused. Investigation It is argued by learned counsel f ely implicated in this case on the basis in cash but also through banking ents, it was revealed that the money transferred by accused Roop Singh himself and his accomplices, one of the co-accused Gudia Devi, Ruvi e accused Roop Singh was arrested. rrogation admitting his involvement ntial portion of the cheated amount ner, Abhishek and Surender Kumar. 7.12.2025. She disclosed that at the itted credit of an amount of Rs.30 e transferred on the instructions of arrested on 01.03.2026 and she too was credited into her bank account used Roop Singh. ed, accused Gudia Devi, sister of the nephew of accused Ruvi Devi, also i Devi that they had allowed transfer unts. The accused Ruvi Devi was igation qua the petitioner now stands nsel for the petitioner that she has e basis of disclosure statement of co- king oney ingh ne of Ruvi sted. ment ount mar. t the s.30 s of e too ount f the also nsfer was tands has - AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.19 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M- 3387 accused which c was not named Roop Singh, wh transferred in h accused Ruvi to Ruvi Devi by of any transactio investigation. T purpose would antecedents are therefore, argue 8. Pe report, has argu as leveled again of bail. 9. Th counsel for the p 10. Th Gudiya Devi, a for the purpose from the comp commission of been in custody 33876-2026 (O&M) 5 hich cannot be considered to be legal amed in the FIR. There is no direct lin gh, who was the main culprit. The a d in her bank account by accused R Devi, who is aunt of the petitione evi by the petitioner through GPAY a nsaction. She is in custody since long tion. The trial will take considerable would be served by detaining he ts are clean. The subject offences ar , argued that the petition deserves to be Per contra, learned State counsel, s argued that taking into consideration against the petitioner, she does not d This Court has heard the rival s or the parties at considerable length. The petitioner, in connivance with evi, and Ruvi Devi, is alleged to hav urpose of transfer of an amount of ₹2 complainant. The allegations prim on of subject offences as against the ustody since 1st March 2026. The ch e legally admissible in evidence. She ect link between her and the accused The amount of ₹20 lakhs had been used Roop Singh on asking of the titioner. This money was given back PAY account. She is not beneficiary e long. She is not required for further erable time to conclude. No useful ng her in custody anymore. Her ces are triable by Magistrate. It is, s to be allowed. unsel, while relying upon the status eration the gravity of the allegations s not deserve to be extended benefit rival submissions made by learned e with the co-accused Roop Singh, to have facilitated her bank account ₹20 lakhs, which was extracted prima facie make out a case for st the petitioner. However, she has he chances of conclusion of trial in . She used been f the back ciary r seful Her It is, tatus tions nefit rned ingh, ount acted e for has ial in AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.19 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M- 3387 near future are accused who ha committed by proposition of l incarceration sh of the jail is to s preventive or circumstances, would be served the petition is a subject to her learned trial Co on the following 33876-2026 (O&M) 6 re are bleak as the investigation is stil ho have absconded are yet to be arres d by the petitioner are triable by M of law is that bail is the rule and tion should not be replica of post-conv l is to secure appearance of the accuse e or punitive. Keeping in vie nces, this Court is of the considered o served by keeping the petitioner in cu on is allowed and the petitioner is o furnishing personal and surety b rial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/D lowing conditions :- (i) The petitioner shall not dir inducement, threat or promise t the facts of the case or tamper w any manner whatsoever. (ii) The petitioner shall not l circumstance without permission (iii) The petitioner shall appear b and every date of hearing unle Trial Court. is still in progress and some of the e arrested. The offences as allegedly by Magistrate. The well settled e and jail is an exception. Pre-trial conviction sentencing. The object accused during trial, and it cannot be n view the aforesaid facts and ered opinion that no useful purpose r in custody anymore. Accordingly, r is ordered to be released on bail, rety bonds to the satisfaction of the trate/Duty Magistrate concerned and not directly or indirectly make any mise to any person acquainted with per with the evidence of the case in not leave the country under any ission of the learned trial Court. ppear before the Trial Court on each ess her presence is exempted by f the edly ttled trial bject ot be and pose , bail, f the and any with se in any each y AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.19 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M- 3387 11. It i for the purpose bearing on the m 12. Sin any, is rendered 18.08.2026 Amit Sharma 33876-2026 (O&M) 7 (iv) The petitioner shall provide as present address before the lea furnishing of bonds and shall informing the trial Court. (v) The petitioner shall also gi PAN Card if any and details of h the learned trial Court at the time case, any change in her mobile p she shall inform about the same advance and shall keep her mobi It is made clear that any observati urpose of deciding the present petitio n the merits of the case. Since the main petition has been ndered infructuous. (M Whether speaking/reasoned:- Whether reportable:- Yes/No rovide her permanent address as well the learned trial Court at the time of shall not change the same without lso give copy of her Aadhar Card, ils of her mobile phone number(s) to he time of furnishing of bonds and in obile phone number takes place, then e same to the learned trial Court in mobile phone switch on all times. servation made herein above is only petition and the same shall have no been allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE - Yes/No well e of thout ard, (s) to nd in then rt in only e no n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.19 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.