Parveen Sharma Alias Parveen v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 08.05.2026 PARVEEN SHARMA @ PARVEEN

...Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S. SHEKHAWAT Present :

Mr. Arshdeep S. Khaira, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Charanpreet Singh, A.A.G., Punjab.

Mr. Manish Kansra, Advocate for the complainant.

N.S. SHEKHAWAT, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) with a prayer to grant a regular bail to him in case FIR No.30 dated 31.03.2025 registered under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC, at Police Station C-Division, District Amritsar. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant has alleged that the petitioner committed a fraud of Rs. 10 lakhs upon the complainant. In fact, the petitioner is a poor person and was not in a position to arrange jobs for the complainant's son and daughter. Even otherwise, the allegations, on the face of it, are false and frivolous, and no prudent person would ever believe such allegations. The petitioner is, in fact, running a

-2salon and has no connection with any government department. Moreover, the petitioner has no association with any political leader or bureaucrat, and apparently, the story has been concocted. Learned counsel further contends that the alleged payments were made between August 2023 and April 2024; however, initial complaint lodged on 20.11.2024 i.e., after the delay of seven months and the FIR in the present case was registered on 31.03.2025 i.e., after an unexplained delay of five months. He further submits that the petitioner was arrested in the present case on 01.10.2025 and has been in custody since then. All the offences in the present case are triable by the Court of Magistrate, and the trial has not progressed at all. In fact, the trial Court framed charges against the petitioner, but on the last five dates of hearing, no prosecution witness was examined. Thus, an attempt has been made by the prosecution to delay the trial before the trial Court. 3.

On the other hand, learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is the main accused and that huge sums were transferred into his account by the complainant and others. Apart from that, the petitioner is involved in another case of a similar nature, and therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

4.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

5.

It is not disputed that the petitioner was arrested in the present case on 01.10.2025 and has been in custody for the last about seven months. Further, during the course of the trial, charges have been framed against

-3the petitioner; however, the prosecution has not been able to examine even a single witness so far. Moreover, the offences in the present case are triable by the Court of Magistrate, and the prosecution may take quite a long time in examining 20 prosecution witnesses, which have been cited in the challan. Moreover, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner may be in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence or may flee from the process of justice. Thus, without commenting further on the merits of the case at this stage, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned, subject to the following conditions :- (i)
   

                    

            

 

  

                  (ii)
   

             

 

  (iii)
    

              

    

      (iv)
    

 

     

    

   

     

     

 

 

     (v)
    



                      

 

 

            

                

  

 



   !    



-4- 



 

   !






   (vi) 

         



           

  

    

     

        

   

 (vii)
                



     

          

  

    

   

      May 08, 2026 [N.S. SHEKHAWAT] gurpreet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No