Sona Devi v. State of Haryana
Case Details
CRM-M-35182-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-35182-2025 Reserved on: 03.09.2025 Pronounced on: 24.09.2025 Sona Devi ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present:
Legal Reasoning
10. The evidence might be prima facie sufficient to launch prosecution or to frame charges, but this Court is not considering the evidence at that stage, but is analyzing it for the stage of anticipatory bail. An analysis of the above does not justify custodial interrogation or pre-trial incarceration. 11. Given the above, the penal provisions invoked coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for custodial interrogation or the pre-trial incarceration at this stage. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail. This order shall come into force from the time it is uploaded on this Court's official webpage. 12. Given above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail in the FIR captioned above subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, and if the matter is before a Court, then the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Officer/Court must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused. 13. While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following personal identification details: 1. AADHAR number 2. Passport number (If available) and when the attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk. 3. Mobile number (If available) 4. E-Mail id (If available) 14. This order is subject to the petitioner’s complying with the following terms. 15. The petitioner is directed to join the investigation within seven days of uploading this order on the official webpage of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and as and when called by the Investigator. The petitioner shall be in deemed custody for Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/ Section 23 of BSA, 2023. The petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer or any Superior Officer and shall cooperate with the investigation at all further stages as required. In the event of 2 Supreme Court of India in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, SC 2J [E-SCR], Paragraph 127, decided on 02.12.2010. 3 Supreme Court of India in Babu Singh & ors v. State of UP, [E-SCR] P. 777, decided on 31.01.1978. Jyoti Sharma 2025.09.24 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 3 CRM-M-35182-2025 failure to do so, the prosecution will be open to seeking cancellation of the bail. During the investigation, the petitioner shall not be subjected to third-degree, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc. 16. In case the Investigator/Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Station arraigns another section of any penal offense in this FIR, and if the new section prescribes a maximum sentence that is not greater than the sections mentioned above, then this bail order shall be deemed to have also been passed for the newly added section(s). However, suppose the newly inserted sections prescribe a sentence exceeding the maximum sentence prescribed in the sections mentioned above; then, in that case, the Investigator/Officer-In-Charge shall give the petitioner notice of a minimum of seven days, providing an opportunity to avail the remedies available in law. 17. The significant consideration for granting bail is that the Court aims to give the petitioner another chance to course-correct, reform, and reintegrate into the community as an ideal citizen. To ensure that the petitioner also abides by the assurance made on the petitioner’s behalf by not repeating the offence or indulging in any crime, it shall be desirable to impose the following additional condition. 18. This bail is conditional, with the foundational condition being that if the petitioner repeats the offense or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, the State shall file an application to revoke this bail before the concerned Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and as per their discretion, they may cancel this bail. 19. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 20. A certified copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Appellant-Accused can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. If the attesting officer wants to verify its authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds. 21. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand
Arguments
Mr. Sanchit Punia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Atul Gaur, A.A.G., Haryana. ANOOP CHITKARA, J. **** FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 569 25.09.2023 Hisar Civil Lines, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC District Hisar 1. The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking anticipatory bail. 2. 3. Per paragraph 14 of the bail petition, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. The facts and allegations are being taken from the short reply filed by the State, which reads as follows: “2. That the brief facts of the case are that on 04.08.2023, a complaint bearing No.390P dated 03.08.2023 made by the complainant Sh. Sushil Kumar Sharma, Assistant Welfare Officer, Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, Labour Department, Hisar received in police station Civil Lines, Hisar from the office of Superintendent of Police, Hisar for registration of the FIR against the petitioner Smt. Sona Devi wife of Sh. Surendra Khatak resident of Rampura Mohalla, Hisar alleging therein that on 24.01.2023, she had applied to claim compensation of Rs.2,15,000/- on account of death of her husband Sh. Surendra Khatak through online portal (hrylabour.gov.in) of the Labor Department, showing the date of death of her husband as 23.12.2022, whereas he was died on 27.09.2022. She has also received Rs.15,000/- in her saving bank account No.287100051527 from the Labour Department for the cremation of her husband. The death certificate of Sh. Surendra Khatak has been verified from the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Registration Unit Municipal Council, Hisar, wherein 1 Jyoti Sharma 2025.09.24 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh CRM-M-35182-2025 no record of death of Sh. Surendra Khatak was found, which appears that Smt. Sona Devi has applied for getting death benefits from the Labour Department by fraudulent/wrong means.” 4. The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family. 5. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner would have no objection whatsoever to any stringent conditions that this Court may impose, including that if the petitioner repeats the offense or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, the State may file an application to revoke this bail before the concerned Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and may do so at their discretion, to which the petitioner shall have no objection. 6. 7. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the short reply. It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the short reply, which read as follows: “6. That in compliance with the directions issued by this Hon'ble Court, the petitioner has joined in investigation on 20.07.2025. During integration she disclosed that she never applied for claim compensation of Rs.2,15,000/- on account of death of her husband Sh. Surendra Khatak as labour through online portal (hrylabour.gov.in) of the Labor Department, showing the date of death of her husband as 23.12.2022 and she did not know how an amount of Rs.15,000/- came in her saving bank account No.287100051527 from the Labour Department for the cremation of her husband. She further stated that Mahender Singh (Devar) had prepared the online paper who has already been expired. I don't know from whom he had prepared the documents, I am an illiterate lady. During interrogation she stated that we had prepared D.D. of Rs.15,000/- and gone through the office of Labour Department, Hisar but they refused to accept the same. We handed over the D.D. to our counsel.” 8. Although the allegations are serious, but the amount involved is petty coupled with the fact that petitioner is a woman and is a first offender, in the opinion of this Court, pre- trial incarceration or custodial interrogation is not required. 9. The law of bail, like any other branch of law, has its own philosophy, and occupies an important place in the administration of justice and the concept of bail emerges from the conflict between the police power to restrict liberty of a man who is alleged to have committed a crime, and presumption of innocence in favour of the alleged criminal.1Personal liberty is a very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed 1 Supreme Court of India in Vaman Narain Ghiya v. state of Rajasthan, [E-SCR] ; [2008] 17 SCR 369, Para 16, decided on 12.12.2008. Jyoti Sharma 2025.09.24 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 2 CRM-M-35182-2025 only when it becomes imperative according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.2 Personal liberty deprived when bail is refused, is too precious a value of our constitutional system recognised under Art. 21 that the curial power to negate it is a great trust exercisable, not casually, but judicially with lively concern for the cost to the individual and the community.3
Decision
disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 24.09.2025 Jyoti Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes No. Whether reportable: Jyoti Sharma 2025.09.24 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 4