CRM-M- 338876-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THHE HIGH COURT OF PUNJABB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARHH (223) CCRM-M-33876-2026 (O&M) DDate of decision : 18.08.2026 RAKHI DEVVI ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF HHARYANA ...Respondent CORAM: HHON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MAANISHA BATRA Present: MMr. Aakash Rana, Advocate for thhe petitioner MMr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryanna * *** MANISHA BBATRA, J. (ORAL) 1. TThe instant petition has been filedd by the petitioner under Sectionn 483 of Bharaatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for short “BNSS”) forr grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.499 dated 28.08.20244 registered undder Sections 120B, 384, 406, 4200, 467, 468, 471 of IPC at Policee Station Saran, District Faridabad. 2. AAs per the allegations, Arun Vermma, son of the complainant Inderr Pal Verma haad a matrimonial dispute with hhis wife. An FIR was registeredd against him. SSubsequently, the said matrimonnial dispute was amicably settledd and marriage between his son and his wife was dissolved by a decree off divorce passedd on 31.03.2018. The accused Roop Singh was working as aa munshi/clerk of the advocate who was engagged by the complainant and hiss family during the course of the abovementionned matrimonial litigation. Evenn after conclusion of the said litigation, accussed Roop Singh had continuedd visiting the coomplainant and his family memmbers and gradually gained theirr AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.19 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

CRM-M- 338876-2026 (O&M) 2 confidence. HHe represented to them that he haad become a practising advocatee after completinng his law degree.

3. AAs per the further allegations, thee accused Roop Singh visited thee jewellery shopp of the complainant as on 04.009.2018 and represented to himm that former wiife of his son had initiated some litigation before this Court withh regard to the previousp matrimonial dispute andd also told him that if immediatee legal action wwas not taken, the complainant annd his family members would bee sent to jail. Hee assured the complainant to gett some senior advocate engagedd in this Court for the purpose of defending hiis family members and himself.. He also allurred the complainant to institutte proceedings for recovery off compensation from his daughter-in-law and hher family members and on thatt pretext, he seccured the signatures of the compplainant and his family memberss on several blaank or typed papers as well ass Vakalatnama. Being unawaree about the techhnicalities of law and while repoosing faith on the accused Roopp Singh, the coomplainant and his family memmbers had signed such papers.. However, eveen subsequently, the accused RRoop Singh kept on telling thatt they would b e entangled in other litigationss and also that he had engagedd counsel and haad moved petition for grant of c ompensation in their favour andd further that ann order had been passed by this Court granting compensation too the tune of Rs .35 lakhs in favour of the compl ainant and then by inducing thatt much more coompensation could be given to tthem, he extracted money fromm the complainaant and his family members.

AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.19 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M- 338876-2026 (O&M) 3

4. AAs per the further allegations,, accused Roop Singh furtherr represented thhat the Hon’ble Supreme Court hhad enhanced the compensationn amount to Rss.5 crores in favour of the coomplainant and again extractedd money from tthe complainant. The signaturess and fingerprints of son of thee complainant werew taken and several blank pappers and stamp papers etc. weree got signed by the complainant even subseque ntly also and in this manner, ann amount of Rs.40R lakhs was extracted fro m the complainant/his familyy members by the above named accused Roop Singh. Whenever thee complainant askeda about the amount of co mpensation, the accused Roopp Singh made oneo or the other excuse and hhe kept on extracting differentt amounts of mmoney from 2021 to 2023 also anand an amount of approximatelyy Rs.2,53,26,8500/- was extracted by Roop Singgh from the complainant underr the guise of puursuing fictitious judicial proceeedings. The accused Roop Singhh also instilled fear in the mind of the complaainant and his family members.. Ultimately, whhen the accused Roop Singh didd not give any satisfactory replyy about the fatee of the litigations initiated on behalf of the complainant andd started avoidinng him and even stopped taking his telephone calls, on suspicionn having been arrisen, the complainant made inquuiries and came to know that thee representationns as made by the accused Roop Singh were totally false and hee had cheated himh by duping him of huge amoount of money and by showingg false and fabrricated documents of judicial prroceedings to him. As such, hee prayed for tak ing action in the matter.

5. AAfter registration of FIR, innvestigation proceedings weree initiated. It wasw revealed that the complainannt had made payment of moneyy AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.19 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M- 338876-2026 (O&M) 4 to the accuseed Roop Singh not only in ccash but also through bankingg channels. On cchecking the account statementss, it was revealed that the moneyy deposited by thhe complainant had been got trannsferred by accused Roop Singhh in different baank accounts maintained by himsself and his accomplices, one off whom was thee present petitioner and also th e co-accused Gudia Devi, Ruvii Devi, Abhisheek and Surender Kumar. The acccused Roop Singh was arrested.. He suffered ddisclosure statement on interrogaation admitting his involvementt in the crime anda about transfer of substantiall portion of the cheated amountt into bank accoount of Gudia Devi, petitioner, Abhishek and Surender Kumar.. Accused Gudiia Devi was arrested on 27.12.2025. She disclosed that at thee instance of thhe petitioner, she had permittedd credit of an amount of Rs.300 lakhs into herr bank account which were traansferred on the instructions off accused Roop Singh. The petitioner was arreested on 01.03.2026 and she tooo admitted that an amount of Rs.20 lakhs was credited into her bank accountt and was transfferred at the instance of accused Roop Singh.

6. Inn their statements so suffered, acccused Gudia Devi, sister of thee Ruvi Devi andd the petitioner, wife of the nephhew of accused Ruvi Devi, alsoo disclosed that it was on the asking of Ruvi Devvi that they had allowed transferr of money in ttheir respective banks accountss. The accused Ruvi Devi wass nominated as additional accused. Investigatioon qua the petitioner now standss concluded. 7. Itt is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that she hass been falsely immplicated in this case on the bassis of disclosure statement of co-- AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.19 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M- 338876-2026 (O&M) 5

accused whichh cannot be considered to be legaally admissible in evidence. Shee was not namedd in the FIR. There is no direct liink between her and the accusedd Roop Singh, whow was the main culprit. Thee amount of ₹20 lakhs had beenn transferred in her bank account by accused Roop Singh on asking of thee accused Ruvi Devi, who is aunt of the petitionner. This money was given backk to Ruvi Devi bby the petitioner through GPAYY account. She is not beneficiaryy of any transaction. She is in custody since longg. She is not required for furtherr investigation. The trial will take considerablle time to conclude. No usefull purpose woulld be served by detaining hher in custody anymore. Herr antecedents arre clean. The subject offences are triable by Magistrate. It is,, therefore, arguued that the petition deserves to bbe allowed. 8. PPer contra, learned State counseel, while relying upon the statuss report, has arggued that taking into considerati on the gravity of the allegationss as leveled agaainst the petitioner, she does nott deserve to be extended benefitt of bail. 9. TThis Court has heard the rival submissions made by learnedd counsel for thee parties at considerable length.

10. TThe petitioner, in connivance wiith the co-accused Roop Singh,, Gudiya Devi, and Ruvi Devi, is alleged to haave facilitated her bank accountt for the purposse of transfer of an amount of ₹₹20 lakhs, which was extractedd from the commplainant. The allegations primma facie make out a case forr commission ofo subject offences as against thhe petitioner. However, she hass been in custoddy since 1st March 2026. The cchances of conclusion of trial inn AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.19 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M- 338876-2026 (O&M) 6

near future aree bleak as the investigation is s till in progress and some of thee accused who haveh absconded are yet to be arrrested. The offences as allegedlyy committed byy the petitioner are triable by Magistrate. The well settledd proposition off law is that bail is the rule andd jail is an exception. Pre-triall incarceration shoulds not be replica of post-connviction sentencing. The objectt of the jail is too secure appearance of the accussed during trial, and it cannot bee preventive orr punitive. Keeping in viiew the aforesaid facts andd circumstancess, this Court is of the consideredd opinion that no useful purposee would be servved by keeping the petitioner in ccustody anymore. Accordingly,, the petition iss allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail,, subject to her furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of thee learned trial Court/ChiefC Judicial Magistrate//Duty Magistrate concerned andd on the followinng conditions :- (i) The petitioner shall not ddirectly or indirectly make anyy inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted withh the facts of the case or tamper with the evidence of the case inn any manner whatsoever. (ii) The petitioner shall not leave the country under anyy circumstance without permissioon of the learned trial Court. (iii) The petitioner shall appearr before the Trial Court on eachh and every date of hearing unleess her presence is exempted byy Trial Court. AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.19 11:45

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M- 338876-2026 (O&M) 7 (iv) The petitioner shall providde her permanent address as welll as present address before the leearned trial Court at the time off furnishing of bonds and shalll not change the same withoutt informing the trial Court. (v) The petitioner shall also ggive copy of her Aadhar Card,, PAN Card if any and details off her mobile phone number(s) too the learned trial Court at the timme of furnishing of bonds and inn case, any change in her mobile phone number takes place, thenn she shall inform about the samme to the learned trial Court inn advance and shall keep her mobbile phone switch on all times. 11. Itt is made clear that any observaation made herein above is onlyy for the purposse of deciding the present petitiion and the same shall have noo bearing on thee merits of the case. 12. SSince the main petition has been allowed, pending application, iff any, is rendereed infructuous. ((MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE 18.08.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned:-- Yes/No Amit Sharma Whether reportable:- Yes/No AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.19 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

CRM-M- 338876-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THHE HIGH COURT OF PUNJABB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARHH (223) CCRM-M-33876-2026 (O&M) DDate of decision : 18.08.2026 RAKHI DEVVI ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF HHARYANA ...Respondent CORAM: HHON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MAANISHA BATRA Present: MMr. Aakash Rana, Advocate for thhe petitioner MMr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryanna * *** MANISHA BBATRA, J. (ORAL) 1. TThe instant petition has been filedd by the petitioner under Sectionn 483 of Bharaatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for short “BNSS”) forr grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.499 dated 28.08.20244 registered undder Sections 120B, 384, 406, 4200, 467, 468, 471 of IPC at Policee Station Saran, District Faridabad. 2. AAs per the allegations, Arun Vermma, son of the complainant Inderr Pal Verma haad a matrimonial dispute with hhis wife. An FIR was registeredd against him. SSubsequently, the said matrimonnial dispute was amicably settledd and marriage between his son and his wife was dissolved by a decree off divorce passedd on 31.03.2018. The accused Roop Singh was working as aa munshi/clerk of the advocate who was engagged by the complainant and hiss family during the course of the abovementionned matrimonial litigation. Evenn after conclusion of the said litigation, accussed Roop Singh had continuedd visiting the coomplainant and his family memmbers and gradually gained theirr AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.19 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

CRM-M- 338876-2026 (O&M) 2 confidence. HHe represented to them that he haad become a practising advocatee after completinng his law degree.

3. AAs per the further allegations, thee accused Roop Singh visited thee jewellery shopp of the complainant as on 04.009.2018 and represented to himm that former wiife of his son had initiated some litigation before this Court withh regard to the previousp matrimonial dispute andd also told him that if immediatee legal action wwas not taken, the complainant annd his family members would bee sent to jail. Hee assured the complainant to gett some senior advocate engagedd in this Court for the purpose of defending hiis family members and himself.. He also allurred the complainant to institutte proceedings for recovery off compensation from his daughter-in-law and hher family members and on thatt pretext, he seccured the signatures of the compplainant and his family memberss on several blaank or typed papers as well ass Vakalatnama. Being unawaree about the techhnicalities of law and while repoosing faith on the accused Roopp Singh, the coomplainant and his family memmbers had signed such papers.. However, eveen subsequently, the accused RRoop Singh kept on telling thatt they would b e entangled in other litigationss and also that he had engagedd counsel and haad moved petition for grant of c ompensation in their favour andd further that ann order had been passed by this Court granting compensation too the tune of Rs .35 lakhs in favour of the compl ainant and then by inducing thatt much more coompensation could be given to tthem, he extracted money fromm the complainaant and his family members.

AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.19 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M- 338876-2026 (O&M) 3

4. AAs per the further allegations,, accused Roop Singh furtherr represented thhat the Hon’ble Supreme Court hhad enhanced the compensationn amount to Rss.5 crores in favour of the coomplainant and again extractedd money from tthe complainant. The signaturess and fingerprints of son of thee complainant werew taken and several blank pappers and stamp papers etc. weree got signed by the complainant even subseque ntly also and in this manner, ann amount of Rs.40R lakhs was extracted fro m the complainant/his familyy members by the above named accused Roop Singh. Whenever thee complainant askeda about the amount of co mpensation, the accused Roopp Singh made oneo or the other excuse and hhe kept on extracting differentt amounts of mmoney from 2021 to 2023 also anand an amount of approximatelyy Rs.2,53,26,8500/- was extracted by Roop Singgh from the complainant underr the guise of puursuing fictitious judicial proceeedings. The accused Roop Singhh also instilled fear in the mind of the complaainant and his family members.. Ultimately, whhen the accused Roop Singh didd not give any satisfactory replyy about the fatee of the litigations initiated on behalf of the complainant andd started avoidinng him and even stopped taking his telephone calls, on suspicionn having been arrisen, the complainant made inquuiries and came to know that thee representationns as made by the accused Roop Singh were totally false and hee had cheated himh by duping him of huge amoount of money and by showingg false and fabrricated documents of judicial prroceedings to him. As such, hee prayed for tak ing action in the matter.

5. AAfter registration of FIR, innvestigation proceedings weree initiated. It wasw revealed that the complainannt had made payment of moneyy AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.19 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M- 338876-2026 (O&M) 4 to the accuseed Roop Singh not only in ccash but also through bankingg channels. On cchecking the account statementss, it was revealed that the moneyy deposited by thhe complainant had been got trannsferred by accused Roop Singhh in different baank accounts maintained by himsself and his accomplices, one off whom was thee present petitioner and also th e co-accused Gudia Devi, Ruvii Devi, Abhisheek and Surender Kumar. The acccused Roop Singh was arrested.. He suffered ddisclosure statement on interrogaation admitting his involvementt in the crime anda about transfer of substantiall portion of the cheated amountt into bank accoount of Gudia Devi, petitioner, Abhishek and Surender Kumar.. Accused Gudiia Devi was arrested on 27.12.2025. She disclosed that at thee instance of thhe petitioner, she had permittedd credit of an amount of Rs.300 lakhs into herr bank account which were traansferred on the instructions off accused Roop Singh. The petitioner was arreested on 01.03.2026 and she tooo admitted that an amount of Rs.20 lakhs was credited into her bank accountt and was transfferred at the instance of accused Roop Singh.

6. Inn their statements so suffered, acccused Gudia Devi, sister of thee Ruvi Devi andd the petitioner, wife of the nephhew of accused Ruvi Devi, alsoo disclosed that it was on the asking of Ruvi Devvi that they had allowed transferr of money in ttheir respective banks accountss. The accused Ruvi Devi wass nominated as additional accused. Investigatioon qua the petitioner now standss concluded. 7. Itt is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that she hass been falsely immplicated in this case on the bassis of disclosure statement of co-- AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.19 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M- 338876-2026 (O&M) 5

accused whichh cannot be considered to be legaally admissible in evidence. Shee was not namedd in the FIR. There is no direct liink between her and the accusedd Roop Singh, whow was the main culprit. Thee amount of ₹20 lakhs had beenn transferred in her bank account by accused Roop Singh on asking of thee accused Ruvi Devi, who is aunt of the petitionner. This money was given backk to Ruvi Devi bby the petitioner through GPAYY account. She is not beneficiaryy of any transaction. She is in custody since longg. She is not required for furtherr investigation. The trial will take considerablle time to conclude. No usefull purpose woulld be served by detaining hher in custody anymore. Herr antecedents arre clean. The subject offences are triable by Magistrate. It is,, therefore, arguued that the petition deserves to bbe allowed. 8. PPer contra, learned State counseel, while relying upon the statuss report, has arggued that taking into considerati on the gravity of the allegationss as leveled agaainst the petitioner, she does nott deserve to be extended benefitt of bail. 9. TThis Court has heard the rival submissions made by learnedd counsel for thee parties at considerable length.

10. TThe petitioner, in connivance wiith the co-accused Roop Singh,, Gudiya Devi, and Ruvi Devi, is alleged to haave facilitated her bank accountt for the purposse of transfer of an amount of ₹₹20 lakhs, which was extractedd from the commplainant. The allegations primma facie make out a case forr commission ofo subject offences as against thhe petitioner. However, she hass been in custoddy since 1st March 2026. The cchances of conclusion of trial inn AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.19 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M- 338876-2026 (O&M) 6

near future aree bleak as the investigation is s till in progress and some of thee accused who haveh absconded are yet to be arrrested. The offences as allegedlyy committed byy the petitioner are triable by Magistrate. The well settledd proposition off law is that bail is the rule andd jail is an exception. Pre-triall incarceration shoulds not be replica of post-connviction sentencing. The objectt of the jail is too secure appearance of the accussed during trial, and it cannot bee preventive orr punitive. Keeping in viiew the aforesaid facts andd circumstancess, this Court is of the consideredd opinion that no useful purposee would be servved by keeping the petitioner in ccustody anymore. Accordingly,, the petition iss allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail,, subject to her furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of thee learned trial Court/ChiefC Judicial Magistrate//Duty Magistrate concerned andd on the followinng conditions :- (i) The petitioner shall not ddirectly or indirectly make anyy inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted withh the facts of the case or tamper with the evidence of the case inn any manner whatsoever. (ii) The petitioner shall not leave the country under anyy circumstance without permissioon of the learned trial Court. (iii) The petitioner shall appearr before the Trial Court on eachh and every date of hearing unleess her presence is exempted byy Trial Court. AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.19 11:45

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M- 338876-2026 (O&M) 7 (iv) The petitioner shall providde her permanent address as welll as present address before the leearned trial Court at the time off furnishing of bonds and shalll not change the same withoutt informing the trial Court. (v) The petitioner shall also ggive copy of her Aadhar Card,, PAN Card if any and details off her mobile phone number(s) too the learned trial Court at the timme of furnishing of bonds and inn case, any change in her mobile phone number takes place, thenn she shall inform about the samme to the learned trial Court inn advance and shall keep her mobbile phone switch on all times. 11. Itt is made clear that any observaation made herein above is onlyy for the purposse of deciding the present petitiion and the same shall have noo bearing on thee merits of the case. 12. SSince the main petition has been allowed, pending application, iff any, is rendereed infructuous. ((MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE 18.08.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned:-- Yes/No Amit Sharma Whether reportable:- Yes/No AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.19 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.