Ragini Sharma v. State Of Punjab And ANR

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 15.07.2024 Ragini Sharma ...... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab & another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Present :

Mr. Sahil Vij, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Navdeep Singh, DAG, Punjab.

**** Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has filed vakalatnama with no objection from the earlier counsel in Court today, which is taken on record.

Main case The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.12 dated 03.02.2024 under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Division No.7, Jalandhar District Jalandhar. 2.

On the last date of hearing i.e. on 08.04.2024 while noticing the following submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court had granted the concession of interim bail to the petitioner and asked her to join investigation:

"Learned counsel inter alia contends that the only allegation levelled against the petitioner is that she accompanied her husband, i.e. the prime accused Gaurav

-2Sharma, to the house of the complainant and thereafter, lured the latter into investing money in the sum of approximately Rs.58.00 lacs on the promise that it would fetch them huge profits. On a pointed query put to the learned counsel as to whether any amount stood deposited by the complainant into the bank account of the petitioner, he has replied in the negative; it has also been submitted that the petitioner has clean antecedents and is not involved in any other criminal case."

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of order dated 08.04.2024. the petitioner has joined the investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency.

4.

Learned State counsel, on instructions, has not disputed the submission made by the counsel opposite.

On further query put to the State counsel, it has not been disputed that no sum of money was deposited in the bank account of the petitioner; still further, the petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case much less a case of similar nature. However, State counsel, on instructions, has submitted that a sum of Rs.4,80,000/- was allegedly given in cash to the petitioner, which has not yet been recovered. 4.

In view of the above, present petition is allowed and interim order dated 08.04.2024 is made absolute subject to the conditions as envisaged in Section 438(2) Cr.PC.

(MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) 15.07.2024 JUDGE sonia Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No

-3-