Geeta Devi v. State Of Haryana

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. M-9248 of 2026 Date of Decision: 18.03.2026 Geeta Devi ... Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Haryana ... Respondent(s) CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh.

Present:

Mr. Kartar Singh, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent.

Mr. Yogeshwar Dayal Kaushik, Ms. Jony Bansal and Mr. Rahul Judge, Advocates, for the complainant. Surya Partap Singh, J.

1.

This petition for pre-arrest bail is the first petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of 'the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023'. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No. 121 dated 08.10.2025, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 420 and 406 of 'the Indian Penal Code, 1860' Police Station Tigaon, District Faridabad, Haryana.

2.

Vide order dated 17.02.2026, the petitioner was admitted to interim anticipatory bail, subject to the condition of furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of arresting officer. It was also directed that the petitioner shall join the investigation.

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.03.20 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3.

Reply has been filed by the learned State counsel. The same be

Criminal Misc. No. M-9248 of 2026 taken on record.

4.

Heard.

5.

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in compliance with the order dated 17.02.2026 the petitioner has joined investigation and therefore, the order dated 17.02.2026, whereby the benefit of interim anticipatory bail was accorded to the petitioner, be made absolute. 6.

The learned State counsel being assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant, has controverted the above-mentioned arguments. It has been contended by the learned State counsel, on the instructions from 'SI Prem Chand', that in the present case although the petitioner has joined investigation, but he has been non-cooperative and recovery of money is yet to take place.

7.

The record has been perused carefully.

8.

Since the recovery of money is not a matter in issue in the present case, and for that purpose the remedy lies with the Civil Court only, it is hereby observed that for the recovery of money custodial interrogation of the petitioner cannot be held to be necessary. 9.

In view of above, the present petition is hereby allowed, and the order dated 17.02.2026, whereby the petitioner was accorded the benefit of interim anticipatory bail, is hereby made absolute. (Surya Partap Singh) Judge March 18, 2026 "DK"

Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.03.20 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document