Reena Rani v. Mr. Hemant Aggarwal, DAG, Punjab

2023 seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No.30 dated 04.03.2026, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC, 1860, and Section 24 of the Immigration Act, 2025 (Section 120-B of IPC added later on) at Police Station Sudhar, District Ludhiana.

#2. The gravamen of the allegations in the FIR in question is that the petitioner, along with Lakhvir Singh Sidhu alias Lakhveer Singh Sidhu, was engaged in the business of travel consultancy and operated an office under the name Safe Consultant at New Abadi, Akalgarh Palika Bazar. For the purpose of sending the complainant abroad, a deal was CRM-M No.32330 of 2026 -2- finalized for a total consideration of Rs. 45 lakhs. Out of the agreed amount, the accused persons jointly received Rs.35 lakhs from the complainant on different dates and through different modes, including Google Pay transfers and cheques, in their joint account. The remaining amount of Rs.10 lakhs was agreed to be paid upon successfully sending the complainant abroad. However, despite receiving the substantial amount of Rs.35 lakhs, the petitioner failed to send the complainant abroad as promised. When the complainant demanded the return of his money, a compromise was effected between the parties, pursuant to which the petitioner along with Lakhvir Singh Sidhu issued a cheque amounting to Rs.25 lakhs. However, upon presentation, the said cheque was dishonoured/bounced.

#3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was arrested on 4.3.2026. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question as the FIR- complainant was not able to pursue his dream to go/settle abroad to his satisfaction. Learned counsel has further submitted that a civil suit, between the rival parties, is already pending adjudication before the concerned Civil Court at Ludhiana. Learned counsel has urged that the challan, upon culmination of investigation, already stands filed. Learned counsel has further argued that co-accused Lakhvir Singh Sidhu has granted the concession of regular bail vide order dated 20.5.2026 passed by this Court in CRM-M No.26983 of 2026. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. CRM-M No.32330 of 2026 -3-

#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 the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 5.7.2026, in the Court today, which is taken on record.

#5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case. Before delving into the matter further, it would be germane to refer herein the case law governing the issue in hand:

5.1 Gudikanti Narasimhulu and others vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1978 SUPREME COURT 429, relevant whereof reads as under: “10. The significance and sweep of Article 21 make the deprivation of liberty a matter of grave concern and permissible only when the law authorising it is reasonable, even-handed and geared to the goals of community good and State necessity spelt out in Article 19. Indeed, the considerations I have set out as criteria are germane to the constitutional proposition I have deduced. Reasonableness postulates intelligent care and predicates that deprivation of freedom- by refusal of bail is not for punitive purpose but for the bi-focal interests of justice-to the individual involved and society affected.

#11. We must weigh the contrary factors to answer the test of reasonableness, subject to the need for securing the presence, of the bail applicant. It makes sense to assume that a man on bail has a better chance to prepare or present his case than one remanded in custody. And if public justice is to be promoted, mechanical detention should be close to ours, the function of bail is limited, 'community roots' of the, applicant are stressed and, after the Vera Foundation's Manhattan Bail Project, monetary suretyship is losing ground. The considerable public expense in keeping in custody where no danger of disappearance or disturbance can arise, is not a negligible consideration. Equally CRM-M No.32330 of 2026 -4- important is the deplorable condition, verging on. the inhuman, of our sub-jails, that the unrewarding cruelty and expensive custody of avoidable incarceration makes refusal of bail unreasonable and a Policy favouring release justly sensible.

#12. A few other weighty factors deserve reference. All deprivation of liberty is validated by social defence and individual correction along an anti-criminal direction. Public justice is central to the whole scheme of bail law. Fleeing justice must be forbidden but punitive harshness should be minimised. Restorative devices to redeem the man, even, through community service, meditative drill, study classes or other resources should be innovated, and playing foul with public peace by tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses or committing offence while on judicially sanctioned 'free enterprise,' should be provided against. No seeker of justice shall play confidence tricks on the court or community. Thus, conditions may be hung around bail orders, not to cripple but to protect. Such is the holistic jurisdiction and humanistic orientation invoked by the judicial discretion correlated to the values of our constitution.”

5.2 Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as Gurcharan Singh vs. State (UT of Delhi) 1978 (1) SCC 118, has held as under:- “Where the granting of bail lies within the discretion of the court, the granting or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. Since the object of the detention or imprisonment of the accused is to secure his appearance and submission to the jurisdiction and the judgment of the court, the primary inquiry is whether a recognizance or bond would effect that end.”

5.3 Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment tiled as Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40, has held 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 CRM-M No.32330 of 2026 -5- considered a punishment, unless it can be 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.

#22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some un-convicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, “necessity” is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances.”

#6. The petitioner was arrested on 4.3.2026, whereinafter, investigation was carried out and challan qua the petitioner stands presented on 1.5.2026. Total 9 prosecution witnesses have been cited, but none has been examined till date. It is not in dispute that the trial emanating from the FIR in question is magisterial one. It is also not in dispute that co-accused has already been granted the concession of regular bail by this court. The rival contention raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues, which shall essentially 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. CRM-M No.32330 of 2026 -6-

6.1. As per custody certificate dated 5.7.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 3 months and 27 days.

6.2. Further, as per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is stated to be involved in 2 other FIR(s). However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. 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:- CRM-M No.32330 of 2026 -7- 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. (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

6.7.2026 Ashwanii Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No