Saloni Chadha @ Simranjeet Kaur v. State of Haryana

Ms. Priyanka Sadar, Senior DAG, Haryana Dr. Jaiveer Singh Malik, Advocate, for the complainant --- SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

#1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.510 dated 26.7.2024 under Sections 61, 338, 336(4), 318(4), 316(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Section 238(c) of BNS and Section 24 of Immigration Act, 1983 added later on), registered at Police Station Sector HTM Hisar, District Hisar.

#2. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present petition by the petitioner) is as follows:- ‘On 10.07.2024 822-50 To the Senior Superintendent of Police, Hisar Sir, it is respectfully submitted that we, Vinod Kumar son of Gauri Shankar, CRM-M No.24381 of 2026 -2- and Jaibir son of Ram Singh, residents of Village Mangali Suratya, Tehsil and District Hisar, state that our sons, namely Sangam son of Vinod Kumar, and Sonu son of Jaibir, were to be arranged Australian work visas. For this purpose, a total amount of Rs. 32,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty- Two Lakhs only) at the rate of Rs. 16,00,000/- per candidate was agreed upon. Through the contact of one Abhishek son of Dharamvir, resident of Village Prabhuwala, payments were made to Simranpreet Kaur, having mobile numbers 7087539464 and 9915017341, and to Viren, having mobile number 9915021347. An amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- each was paid on 17.06.2024, and further an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- each was paid on

26.06.2024. The remaining amount of Rs. 11,50,000/- each was paid on

04.07.2024. The said amount was handed over to Simranpreet Kaur at her office situated at Manchester Visa Service, 8th Floor, Pearls Best Heights, Netaji Subhash Place, Delhi. It was assured that after processing, the visa copy would be provided to us after completion of formalities and fingerprint verification in the Australian M.B.S.E. However, thereafter when we contacted them over the phone, they did not answer our calls. At that point, we suspected that we might have been cheated. We then visited the Delhi office, but found that it was closed. There, four to five other persons also arrived who informed us that they too had been defrauded in a similar manner. It is therefore requested that the above-mentioned accused persons be investigated, our money be recovered, and justice be provided to us. It is further requested that strict legal action be taken against the accused persons as per law. Thanking you, Complainant: Vinod Kumar son of Gauri Shankar Jaibir son of Ram Singh Residents of Village Mangali Suratya, Tehsil and District Hisar Mobile Numbers: 87084-09006, 9813077906 Contact Numbers of Accused Persons: Abhishek 89067-34000 Dharamvir-85710-54297.’

#3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 26.1.2026. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question as she was merely working as a receptionist and the main accused Gurjeet has been let out. Learned counsel has urged that the petitioner is a lady aged about 32 years with no criminal antecedents. Learned counsel has further urged CRM-M No.24381 of 2026 -3- that upon culmination of investigation, challan stands presented and conclusion of trial will take long. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

#4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 14.7.2026 in Court, which is taken on record.

4.1 Learned counsel appearing for the complainant has vehemently opposed the grant of regular bail to the petitioner by arguing that the petitioner was duped an amount of ₹32 lakhs but only ₹40,000/- has been recovered till date. Learned counsel has further submitted that co-accused Gurjeet has been let off. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is a master mind behind creation of fake VISA and has been in the habit of duping people. Learned counsel has further urged that the complainant is yet to be examined as a prosecution witness and in case, she is released on bail, there is all the likelihood that the petitioner influenced the prosecution witnesses or interfering in the prosecution evidence. Hence, his prayer for bail may be declined.

#5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

#6. The petitioner was arrested on 26.1.2026 wherein after investigation was carried out; challan was prepared on 20.3.2026 and subsequently filed. Charges in the present case were framed on 20.4.2026. Total 15 prosecution witnesses have been cited and it is conceded case CRM-M No.24381 of 2026 -4- before this Court that none have been examined till date. It is also conceded case of the parties that the trial emanating from the FIR in question is magisterial one. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.

6.1 The petitioner is a lady aged about 32 years (As per memo of parties appended with the petition), hence, bail petition ought to be considered in view of proviso to Section 480(2) BNSS. It is pertinent to mention herein that the proviso to Section 480 BNSS, 2023, is pari materia with proviso to Section 437 Cr.P.C., 1973. In this regard, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by this Court on

14.03.2024 in CRM-M-11503-2024 titled as ‘Ravinder Kaur Vs. State of Punjab’ (dealing with proviso to Section 437 Cr.P.C.), relevant thereof reads as under: “It would be apposite to refer herein to the dicta of a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of ‘Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., 2022(10) SCC 51’ , which held as under: 51. Proviso to Section 437 of the Code mandates that when the accused is under the age of sixteen years, sick or infirm or being a woman, is something which is required to be taken note of. Obviously, the court has to satisfy itself that the accused person is sick or infirm. In a case pertaining to women, the court is expected to show some sensitivity. We have already taken note of the fact that many women who commit cognizable offenses are poor and illiterate. In many cases, upon being young they have children to take care of, and there are many instances when the children are to live in prisons. The statistics would show that more than 1000 children are living in prisons along with their mothers. CRM-M No.24381 of 2026 -5- This is an aspect that the courts are expected to take note of as it would not only involve the interest of the accused, but also the children who are not expected to get exposed to the prisons. There is a grave danger of their being inherited not only with poverty but with crime as well. 58. Section 437 of the Code empowers the Magistrate to deal with all the offenses while considering an application for bail with the exception of an offense punishable either with life imprisonment or death triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions. The first proviso facilitates a court to conditionally release on bail an accused if he is under the age of 16 years or is a woman or is sick or infirm, as discussed earlier. This being a welfare legislation, though introduced by way of a proviso, has to be applied while considering release on bail either by the Court of Sessions or the High Court, as the case may be. The power under Section 439 of the Code is exercised against an order rejecting an application for bail and against an offence exclusively decided by the Court of Sessions. There cannot be a divided application of proviso to Section 437, while exercising the power under Section 439. While dealing with a welfare legislation, a purposive interpretation giving the benefit to the needy person being the intendment is the role required to be played by the court. We do not wish to state that this proviso has to be considered favourably in all cases as the application depends upon the facts and circumstances contained therein. What is required is the consideration per se by the court of this proviso among other factors.’

6.2 As per custody certificate dated 14.7.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 5 months and 18 days & is not shown to be involved in any other case. Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.

#7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on her furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:- The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. (i) (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial. CRM-M No.24381 of 2026 -6- (iii) The petitioner shall not absent herself on any date before the trial. (iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposit her passport, if any, with the trial Court. (vi) The petitioner shall give her cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change her cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. (vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.

#8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

#10. Ordered accordingly. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE

15.7.2026 Ashwanii Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No