[2026:HHC:15678] IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.444 of 2026 Decided on: 08.05.2026 __________________________________________________________ Teena Yadav ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1 Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Pawan Kumar Nadda, Additional Advocate General. Ranjan Sharma, Judge Bail petitioner [Teena Yadav], being in custody since 22.01.2025, has come up before this Court, seeking regular bail, under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sahinta, [referred to as ‘BNSS’], originating from FIR No.5 of 2024, dated 23.01.2024, under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code and Section 66-D of Information and Technology Act, registered at Police Station, Cyber Cell, Central Zone, Mandi, District Mandi [H.P.], with subsequently added Sections 419, 201 read with Section 120B IPC. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? [2026:HHC:15678] - 2 - FACTUAL MATRIX IN BAIL PETITION: 2. Case set up by Learned Counsel is that a false case has been registered against the bail petitioner, in which, she was arrested on 22.01.2025. It is averred that the petitioner is innocent and she has been falsely implicated and there is no evidence to connect her with alleged offence. It is averred that there is no likelihood of bail petitioner absconding or jumping over the bail and she undertakes to appear in the trial, as and when required to do so. Petitioner has given an undertaking that she shall not cause any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the case and shall not dissuade prosecution witnesses in any manner. It is averred that petitioner is ready and willing to furnish bail bonds and surety bonds as may be directed by this Court. It is in this backdrop, the instant petition has been filed with the prayer for releasing the petitioner on bail. It is averred that investigation is complete and nothing is to be recovered from her. It is averred that 20-PWs were sought to be examined [2026:HHC:15678] - 3 - by the prosecution in support of their case, but as on day only 03-PWs have been examined. It is averred that other co-accused, Deepka and Shashank Rastogi have been enlarged on bail and the petitioner has no past criminal antecedents. It is averred that petitioner is facing incarceration for more than one year and four months and the prolongation of incarceration merely by presuming the guilt at this stage is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is averred that the petitioner moved applications for bail i.e. Bail Application No.84 of 2025 before Learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, which was dismissed on 14.05.2025 [Annexure P-2] followed by another Bail Application No. 104 of 2025 before Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.2, Mandi, which was dismissed on 18.08.2025 [Annexure P-3]. It is further averred that the petitioner moved the third bail application vide Bail Application No.116 of 2025 before Learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, which met the fate of dismissal on 08.09.2025 [Annexure P-4] and this is the fourth bail application, moved by the petitioner. [2026:HHC:15678] - 4 - PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS COURT: 3. In the instant bail application, notice was issued by this Court on 31.03.2026 directing the State Authorities to file the Status Report. 3(i) Pursuant to orders dated 31.03.2026, the State Authorities have filed the Status Report dated 02.04.2026 and copy of the same was supplied to Learned Counsel for the petitioner, who prayed for time to go through the Status Report and make submissions. However, on joint request of Learned Counsel on 30.04.2026 the matter was deferred for 08.05.2026. STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES IN STATUS REPORT: 4. Status Report dated 02.04.2026 reveals the factual matrix, indicating that one Shri Avinder Pal Singh had submitted a complaint to police that in the year 1998 he had taken an Insurance Policy, from Exide Life Insurance and due to losses suffered in business, he could not continue with these policies and did not receive back the entire deposited amount. It is averred that in the year 2010, the complainant made a request to Insurance Ombudsman for refund [2026:HHC:15678] - 5 - of deposited amount but in vain. It is averred that in the year 2022 the complainant received a call from 7428037253, who introduced as Miss Sandhya Sharma from RBI Office and said that he will receive the deposited amount(s) soon and told the complainant to call Mr. Vinod at 74289-97253 and on asking of Mr. Vinod, complainant had been duped of by Mr. Vinod in the name of GST and for giving some amount to other officers and accordingly, the complainant Avinder Pal Singh remitted different amounts in bank accounts of Mr. Vinod in PNB, Kotak Mohindra Bank and IDFC Bank. It is averred that as per the complainant, he got calls from Gajinder Suryavanshi and from one Manjeet Singh, who assured that complainant would get money in case he files case in Delhi High Court for which he remitted different amount(s). Status Report reveal that as per the complainant, the caller, namely Ms. Sandhya Sharma was Tina Yadav [petitioner]. 4(i). Status Report indicates that the bail petitioner has stated during investigation that her husband, Deepak and brother-in-law Shashank [2026:HHC:15678] - 6 - Rastogi were involved and both of them used to divide the money remitted in their accounts or desired bank accounts, who used to spend money in online shopping and video gaming etc. It is averred that the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.85000/- in PNB account of petitioner. 4(ii). Status Report indicate that investigation was completed and the Challan and Supplementary Challan were presented before jurisdictional Court on 25.02.2026. Status Report further indicates that Charge has been framed and trial has commenced and 3 PWs have been examined, as on day. 4(iii). Status Report indicates that in case the petitioner is released on bail, then there is every possibility that she may influence the witnesses and indulge in similar offences. In this background, the State Authorities have opposed the prayer for bail also. 5. Heard, Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Learned Counsel for petitioner and Mr. Pawan Kumar Nadda, Learned Additional Advocate General for respondent- State and have gone through the available records. [2026:HHC:15678] - 7 - MANDATE OF LAW ON BAIL: 6. Broad parameters have been mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court regulating the claim for bail in the cases of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia versus State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565; Ram Govind Upadhyay versus Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar versus Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashish Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496; reiterated in P. Chidambaram versus Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24; Sushila Aggarwal versus State-NCT Delhi, (2020) 5 SCC 01; and CBI versus Santosh Karnani (2023) 6 SCALE 250; which have been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana versus Dharamraj, 2023 SCC Online SC 1085, that after taking into account the accusation, gravity, status, position in society claim for bail is to be examined. While considering the claim for bail the factum as to whether the allegations were frivolous or groundless is to be seen. Depending upon the facts of each case, the bail can be refused, in case, prima-facie [2026:HHC:15678] - 8 - case or reasonable grounds exits and if an offence is serious. Severity of punishment including reasonable apprehension of fleeing away from investigation and trial and the character, past antecedents, behavior, means, position and standing of an accused; likelihood of offence being repeated; reasonable apprehension based on cogent and convincing material that the accused may thereafter threaten the witnesses or the victim may be examined and danger of justice being thwarted by grant of bail etc. are relevant factors for denying the concession of bail. It is mandated that bail can neither be by way of a punishment nor can it be preventative as prolongation of incarceration curtails the personal liberty of an accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. However, while examining the claim for bail, a balance has to be carved between the personal liberty of an accused under Article 21 vis-à-vis the rights of victim and societal interests also. 6(i). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.3840 of 2023, Saumya Churasia [2026:HHC:15678] - 9 - versus Directorate of Enforcement, decided on 14.12.2023 held that the claim for bail, is to be examined by a Court, without delving into the evidence on merits but by forming a prima-facie opinion on totality of facts in the light of broad parameters referred to above. Recently, while dealing with the claim for bail the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the above principles for grant of bail in Criminal Appeal Nos. 3528–3534 of 2025 (Arising from SLP (Crl.) Nos. 516– 522 of 2025), in State of Karnataka versus Sri Darshan, etc. and mandated that neither a detailed examination of the evidence nor any findings touching the merits of the case is to be resorted to. In the backdrop of above parameters, this Court proceeds to analyze the claim for bail in instant case. ANALYSIS OF CLAIM FOR BAIL IN INSTANT CASE: 7. Taking into account the entirety of the facts and circumstances and the material on record as is borne out from the Status Report, this Court is of the considered view, that the bail petitioner [Teena Yadav], is entitled to be enlarged on bail, [2026:HHC:15678] - 10 - for the following reasons:- PRIMA-FACIE ACCUSATION AGAINST BAIL PETITIONER DOUBTFUL: 7(i). Status Report does not reveal that there are reasonable grounds, indicating a prima facie accusation, against the bail petitioner. 7(ii). Status Report reveals that even though a complaint was received at the behest of Avinder Pal Singh, alleging that complainant was duped by asking him to remit amount through electronic mode. The factum as to whether the complainant was duped by the petitioner or other persons or co-accused is a matter which to be tested, examined and proved during trial. Even, the fact as to whether petitioner had deceived the complainant or had fraudulently or dishonestly induced the complainant to deliver any property or had intentionally induced or deceived the complainant, so as to cause damage or harm to the complainant, is a matter to be examined, tested and proved during trial. Presumption of guilt with respect to Section 420 of Indian Penal Code cannot be invoked, at this stage, so as to prolong the incarceration of the bail [2026:HHC:15678] - 11 - petitioner. 7(iii). Likewise, the accusation under Sections 201, 419 read with Section 120-B is not borne out at this stage, when, the Status Report also does not indicate that the bail petitioner was involved in causing disappearance of evidence and cheated anyone by personation; and accordingly the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail. 7(iv). Even prima-facie accusation under Section 66-D of IT Act as to whether it was the petitioner who had resorted to alleged cheating by using communication device or computer resource and whether such devices were, in fact, used by the petitioner or not, is a matter to be tested, examined and proved during trial. Suspicion cannot take place of proof. Nothing has been placed on record in the Status Report to prima-facie establish the involvement of the bail petitioner, showing that the bail petitioner had resorted to cheating and had dishonestly induced the complainant to deliver any property to her or others. Even Status Report does not point out as to whether the device or [2026:HHC:15678] - 12 - computer resource which was allegedly used, were owned by the petitioner or any other persons. In the absence of any material on record in the Status Report, accusation with respect to Section 420 of Indian Penal Code and Section 66-D of IT Act, are not borne out against the petitioner, at this stage. Based on the principles mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and evidence on record and facts that prima-facie accusation and other factors as detailed hereinabove are not made out and therefore, the claim of the petitioner for bail, is accepted. INFRINGMENT OF PERSONAL LIBERTY UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: 8. While reiterating the principle that bail is a rule and jail is an exception and no accused can be deprived of personal liberty on mere accusation and an accused is to be treated as innocent in the eyes of law, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has outlined the object of bail in Guddan alias Roop Narayan Versus State of Rajasthan, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1242, in the following terms:- “11. In the case of Sanjay Chandra V. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40, while hearing a bail Application in a case of [2026:HHC:15678] - 13 - an alleged economic offence, this court held that the object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. It was observed as under: "21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. 23. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson. 25. The provisions of Cr PC confer discretionary jurisdiction on criminal courts to grant bail to the accused pending trial or in appeal against convictions; since the jurisdiction is discretionary, it has to be exercised with great care and caution by balancing the valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in general. In our [2026:HHC:15678] - 14 - view, the reasoning adopted by the learned District Judge, which is affirmed by the High Court, in our opinion, is a denial of the whole basis of our system of law and normal rule of bail system. It transcends respect for the requirement that a man shall be considered innocent until he is found guilty. If such power is recognised, then it may lead to chaotic situation and would jeopardise the personal liberty of an individual. 27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution." 12. Further, in the case of Sandeep Jain v. National Capital Territory of Delhi, (2000) 2 SCC 66, this Court, while hearing a bail application held that conditions for grant of bail cannot become so onerous that their existence itself is tantamount to refusal of bail. This Court held as under: "We are unable to appreciate even the first order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate imposing the onerous condition that an accused at the FIR stage should pay a huge sum of Rs. 2 lakhs to be set at liberty. If he had paid it is a different matter. But the fact that he was not able to pay that amount and in default thereof he is to languish in jail for more than 10 months now, is sufficient indication that he was unable to make up the amount. Can he be detained in custody endlessly for his inability to pay the amount in the range of Rs.2 lakhs? If the cheques issued by his surety were dishonoured, the Court [2026:HHC:15678] - 15 - could perhaps have taken it as a ground to suggest to the payee of the cheques to resort to the legal remedies provided by law. Similarly if the Court was dissatisfied with the conduct of the surety as for his failure to raise funds for honouring the cheques issued by him, the Court could have directed the appellant to substitute him with another surety. But to keep him in prison for such a long period, that too in a case where bail would normally be granted for the offences alleged, is not only hard but improper. It must be remembered that the Court has not even come to the conclusion that the allegations made in the FIR are true. That can be decided only when the trial concludes, if the case is charge- sheeted by the police." PROLONGED INCARCERATION AND INFRINGMENT OF PERSONAL LIBERTY UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: 9. While reiterating the grant of bail, despite statutory embargoes in Special Enactments, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.5266 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (CRL.) No. 13870 of 2024, titled as Partha Chatterjee Versus Directorate of Enforcement, decided on 13.12.2024, 2024 SCC Online SC 3729, has been reiterated, by treating the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India to be of paramount importance and action of prolonging the incarceration so as to [2026:HHC:15678] - 16 - make such incarceration punitive has been deprecated by granting bail. Prolonged detention of petitioner, in facts of this case, shall certainly amount to depriving and curtailing the personal liberty of the petitioner on mere accusation or conjectures or surmises, which are yet to be tested, examined and proved during the trial. Detention of the bail petitioner can neither be punitive nor preventative, so as to make the petitioner to taste imprisonment as a lesson. Denial of bail shall certainly violate the cardinal principle that “bail is rule and jail is an exception”. Even, the State Authorities, have failed to ensure speedy trial and still considerable time is likely to be taken for conclusion of trial; and therefore, the claim of the petitioner for bail carries weight. PERSONAL LIBERTY AND CLAIM FOR BAIL: 10. While dealing with the concept of bail and personal liberty of an accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Criminal Appeal No.2787 of 2024, titled as Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Versus State [2026:HHC:15678] - 17 - of Maharashtra and Another, in the following terms:- “18 Criminals are not born out but made. The human potential in everyone is good and so, never write off any criminal as beyond redemption. This humanist fundamental is often missed when dealing with delinquents, juvenile and adult. Indeed, every saint has a past and every sinner a future. When a crime is committed, a variety of factors is responsible for making the offender commit the crime. Those factors may be social and economic, may be, the result of value erosion or parental neglect; may be, because of the stress of circumstances, or the manifestation of temptations in a milieu of affluence contrasted with indigence or other privations. 19. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime. 20. We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused; not a convict. The over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly, howsoever stringent the penal law may be. 21 We are convinced that the manner in which the prosecuting agency as well as the Court have proceeded, the right of the accused to have a speedy trial could be said to [2026:HHC:15678] - 18 - have been infringed thereby violating Article 21 of the Constitution. 22 In view of the aforesaid, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside.” 10(i). While dealing with rights of fairness, dignity and liberty including right of speedy trial of an under trial in terms of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Central Bureau of Investigation versus Dayamoy Mahato, etc., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2775, has mandated as under: 13. The rights enshrined under Article 21 and their application to undertrials has often been the subject of consideration before this Court and, in one voice it has been held that the rights of fairness, dignity and liberty apply to each and every prisoner, irrespective of the nature of offence that they stand charged for. If this is not maintained then essentially, it would render a difference between an undertrial and a convict, obsolete to a certain extent. We say, to a certain extent because certain facets of Article 21 apply even to those who have been convicted under law. In the case of the former, should these rights not be granted to them or be [2026:HHC:15678] - 19 - available to them in their full extent, it would in a sense render them guilty without it being so. To state the obvious, such a position is wholly impermissible. 14. The jurisprudence of Article 21 has, as it develops, recognised various facets to be intrinsic to the right to life and liberty such as speedy trial, timely completion of investigation, fair trial etc. Unduly long incarceration especially as a undertrial when, the crucial aspect of guilt is yet to be decided, is particularly offensive to this sacrosanct right, if not sustainable as per procedure established by law. Circumspection in granting the relief of bail in heinous offences and more so offences that shock the conscience of the society such as in this case, stems from a place of concern, understandably legitimate at that, about public order, societal security, overall peace and the general deterrent force in criminal law. The scales of Lady Justice must balance on the one hand the constitutionally consecrated and jealously guarded right under Article 21 and on the other, the recognition that individual liberty is not absolute and is subject to just exceptions i.e. the paramount considerations of national interest, sovereignty and integrity of the nation. [2026:HHC:15678] - 20 - In the backdrop of principles outlined in Dayamoy Mahato [supra] the normal principle is; bail is rule and jail an exception. Denial of bail by invoking any of the exceptions applies, in a case, where release will shake the conscience of society, and stems from a place of concern and disturbs public order, societal security, overall peace including paramount considerations of national interest, sovereignty and integrity of the nation. In instant case, no such exceptional eventuality has been carved out in the Status Report. Even accusation is of a trivial in nature and no prima facie case or reasonable grounds exists for infringing the accusation which is a matter to be examined, tested and proved during trial. Prolonging the incarceration is impermissible, in law. ADHERANCE TO PRINCIPLE:- BAIL IS RULE: 11. Depriving the petitioner of the concession of bail shall negate the principle that ‘bail is a rule and jail is an exception’, as outlined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Manish Sisodia vs Directorate [2026:HHC:15678] - 21 - of Enforcement, SLP (Criminal) No.8781 of 2024, decided on 09.08.2024, has held as under :- “49. We find that, on account of a long period of incarceration running for around 17 months and the trial even not having been commenced, the appellant has been deprived of his right to speedy trial. 50. As observed by this Court, the right to speedy trial and the right to liberty are sacrosanct rights. On denial of these rights, the trial court as well as the High Court ought to have given due weightage to this factor. 52. The Court also reproduced the observations made in Gudikanti Narasimhulu (supra), which read thus: “10. In the aforesaid context, we may remind the trial courts and the High Courts of what came to be observed by this Court in Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, High Court reported in (1978) 1 SCC 240. We quote: “What is often forgotten, and therefore warrants reminder, is the object to keep a person in judicial custody pending trial or disposal of an appeal. Lord Russel, C.J., said [R v. Rose, (1898) 18 Cox]: “I observe that in this case bail was refused for the prisoner. It cannot be too strongly impressed on the, magistracy of the country that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment, but that the requirements as to bail are merely to secure the attendance of the prisoner at trial”” 53. The Court further observed that, over a period of time, the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well- settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. From our experience, we can say that it appears that the trial courts and the High Courts attempt to play safe in matters of grant of bail. The principle that bail is a rule and refusal is an exception is, at times, [2026:HHC:15678] - 22 - followed in breach. On account of non- grant of bail even in straight forward open and shut cases, this Court is flooded with huge number of bail petitions thereby adding to the huge pendency. It is high time that the trial courts and the High Courts should recognize the principle that “bail is rule and jail is exception”. 55. As observed by this Court in the case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu (supra), the objective to keep a person in judicial custody pending trial or disposal of an appeal is to secure the attendance of the prisoner at trial. 56. In the present case, the appellant is having deep roots in the society. There is no possibility of him fleeing away from the country and not being available for facing the trial. In any case, conditions can be imposed to address the concern of the State. 57. Insofar as the apprehension given by the learned ASG regarding the possibility of tampering the evidence is concerned, it is to be noted that the case largely depends on documentary evidence which is already seized by the prosecution. As such, there is no possibility of tampering with the evidence. Insofar as the concern with regard to influencing the witnesses is concerned, the said concern can be addressed by imposing stringent conditions upon the appellant.” NOTHING ADVERSARIAL REGARDING TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE OR WITNESSES ETC.: 12. Status Report filed by State Authorities have neither pointed out cogent and convincing material revealing adversarial circumstances that after release on bail, the petitioner is likely to tamper with evidence or may cause inducement, threat or promise to any person or persons acquainted with the facts of [2026:HHC:15678] - 23 - the case. However, the apprehension, if any, of the State Authorities are being safeguarded, by imposing stringent conditions in this bail order. NOTHING ADVERSARIAL REGARDING OBSTRUCTING OR ATTEMPTING TO THWARTLING JUSTICE: 13. Status Report filed by State Authorities has neither pointed out any adversarial circumstances nor placed on record any cogent and convincing material on record to infer that after release on bail, the petitioner may obstruct or thwart the cause of justice in any manner. In absence of any cogent and convincing material, the plea for bail, deserves to be granted to the petitioner, in the instant case. NOTHING ADVERSARIAL LIKELIHOOD OF FLEEING AWAY FROM TRIAL OR JURISDICTION OF COURT: 14. In order to safeguard the rights of bail petitioner and to take care of apprehensions of State that the petitioner may flee away yet, in peculiar facts of this case, this Court stringent conditions in the bail orders, in later part of this order. PAST CRIMINAL ANTECEDENTS: 15. Status Report(s) indicate that the bail petitioner has no criminal antecedents. In these [2026:HHC:15678] - 24 - circumstances, the prolongation of detention when there is nothing adverse regarding the past criminal antecedents also supports the case of bail petitioner for enlargement of bail. BAIL ON PRINCIPLE OF PARITY: 16. In similar facts-situation, a co-accused Deepak and Shashank Rastogi were enlarged on bail by trial Court and therefore, the present petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail, on principle of parity. In Status Report, the State Authorities have not disputed the fact that other co-accused have been enlarged on bail. Therefore, in these circumstances, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail. Ordered accordingly. CONCLUSION: 17. In the facts of instant case, the plea of petitioner for bail carries weight, for the reason, that firstly, prima-facie prosecution story appears to be highly doubtful and improbable at this stage as discussed hereinabove; and secondly, the Status Report reveals that the bail petitioner is in custody since 22.01.2025 and is undergoing incarceration for [2026:HHC:15678] - 25 - about one year and four months; and thirdly, conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time, when, out of total 20-PWs, Learned State Counsel states that only three have been examined and the trial is still likely to take considerable time; and fourthly, delay in trial is not attributable to the petitioner; and fifthly, bail petitioner-accused is presumed to be innocent unless proven guilty; and sixthly, the continued detention can neither be punitive nor preventative ; and seventhly, continued detention in guise of penalizing the petitioner by presuming guilt cannot be permitted; and eighthly, even the State Authorities have not placed any cogent and convincing material that after release on bail there is possibility of accused fleeing away from trial or accused is likely to threaten the witnesses or is likely to thwart justice; and ninthly, the accusation is yet to be tested, examined and proved during the trial; and tenthly, the denial of the right of speedy trial as mandated in Article 21 is also an added factor for granting bail, when, delay in completion of trial is not attributable to the [2026:HHC:15678] - 26 - petitioner herein; and lastly, even as per Status Report, nothing cogent and convincing material has been pointed out, so as to reveal prima-facie accusation against the bail petitioner. Status Report does not indicate convincingly that bail petitioner had deceived the complainant fraudulently or dishonestly, so as to deliver any property to herself or others. Intentional inducement on the part of bail petitioner to deceive the complainant is also not borne out, at this stage. Intent to deceive, so as to cause harm, is also not convincingly borne out in Status Report. The above ingredients of Section 420 of Indian Penal Code and in the absence of prima-facie accusation and reasonable belief in Status Report, cannot be a ground to prolong incarceration of the bail petitioner. Even ingredients of Section 66-D of IT Act with respect to the fact that communication device or computer resource was used by or at the behest of bail petitioner, which is a matter to be tested, examined and proved during trial. The apprehension of the State that bail petitioner may herself misuse the liberty, cannot [2026:HHC:15678] - 27 - be pre-judged, at this stage. 18. In order to safeguard the right of bail petitioner and the victim vis-à-vis the interests of the State, this Court imposes stringent condition in this order hereinafter mandating that infraction, violation or misuse of the concession-liberty, shall entitle the State Authorities to seek cancellation of the concession extended to the petitioner. Denial of bail shall deprive and curtail the sacrosanct fundamental rights of personal liberty and right of speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India of the petitioner at this stage. On totality of facts and circumstances and the mandate of law, referred to above, the claim of the petitioner [Teena Yadav] for enlargement on bail carries weight, in peculiar facts-situation of this case, as discussed above. DIRECTIONS: 19. Based on the above discussion and the material on record and the mandate of law and for the reasons recorded hereinabove and in peculiar facts of case, the instant petition is allowed; and [2026:HHC:15678] - 28 - the State Authorities are directed to release the petitioner [Teena Yadav] on bail, subject to the observance of the following conditions:- (i) Respondent-State Authorities shall release bail petitioner [Teena Yadav] on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- {Rs Fifty Thousand} with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Learned Trial Court; (ii) Petitioner shall undertake to appear in the trial hereinafter, except for her medical exigencies and the exemption granted therefor, if any, in accordance with law; (iii) Petitioner shall abide by all or any other condition(s), which may be imposed by the Learned Trial Court, in view of this order; (iv) Petitioner shall neither involve herself nor shall abet the commission of any offence hereinafter. Involvement in any offence whatsoever or abetting thereof shall entail automatic cancellation of bail granted in terms of this order ; (v) Petitioner shall disclose his functional E-Mail IDs/ WhatsApp number and that of her sureties to the Learned Trial Court; (vi) Petitioner after release, shall report to Investigating Officer or SHO of Police Station concerned, on 2nd Sunday of every month at 11:00 a.m., only for having an update on good conduct and behaviour; (vii) Petitioner shall not jump over the bail and also shall not leave the country without the prior information of the Court; (viii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence in any manner; (ix) Petitioner shall not cause any inducement, threat or promise {directly or indirectly} to witnesses of any other person acquainted with the case; [2026:HHC:15678] - 29 - (x) Petitioner is free to seek modification of any condition contained hereinabove, if need arises; (xi) Learned Trial Court can impose any other condition, if so desires, to ensure the presence and effective progress of trial hereinafter; (xii) State Authorities are free to move this Court for seeking alteration/modification of any of the condition contained in this order or any condition imposed by the Learned Trial Court as a sequel to this order, in fact situation of instant case or circumstances so necessitate, at any time herein-after; (xiii) State Authorities are free to move this Court for seeking cancellation of the concession of bail, in case, the petitioner violates any of the conditions contained in this order.; 20. Observations made in this judgment shall not be construed in any manner as an indictive of findings, for or against the parties herein, either for the purpose of investigation or for trial, which shall proceed in-accordance with law, irrespective of any of the observations contained hereinabove. 21. Petitioner is permitted to produce/use copy of this order, downloaded from the web-page of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, before the authorities concerned, and the said authorities shall not insist for production of a certified copy, but if required, may verify about the passing of this order from the Website of this Court. [2026:HHC:15678] - 30 - 22. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to Superintendent of Police, East Delhi, Delhi and the Superintendent of Police [Cyber Cell], Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, for information and with the direction to intimate the concerned SHO, to keep an update on good conduct and behaviour of the bail petitioner [Teena Yadav] in terms of this order. In aforesaid terms, the instant petition and all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Ranjan Sharma) Judge 08th May, 2026 [tm/Bhardwaj]