Asha Rani v. State Of Haryana

CRM-M-18677-2026 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-18677-2026 Date of Decision: 16.04.2026 ASHA RANI ... Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI

Present:

Mr. Vinod Ghai, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kashish Sahni, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vipul Sherwal, AAG Haryana.

**** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

The prayer in the present petition under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 is for the grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.836 dated 30.10.2025 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 316(2), 316(5), 318(4) of BNS (Sections 338, 336(3), 340(2), 215, 344, 61(2) BNS and Section 7, 12, 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act added later on) at Police Station Karnal, Sadar, District Karnal.

2.

As per the prosecution case, paddy worth Rs.3,54,46,936/- was found missing.

3.

The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner contends that accused owners of the mill had approached the Civil Court for appointment of a Local Commissioner to check the stock of paddy lying on the premises of the mill. On rechecking, no shortfall of paddy was found. The owners of the mill and others have been granted the concession of anticipatory bail vide order dated 02.04.2026. The petitioner, who was the Secretary of the Marketing Committee, Karnal on the other hand, is in custody since 17.02.2026. The report under Section 173(2) Cr.PC (Section 193 BNSS) is yet to be filed. Therefore, the trial KUSUM 2026.04.17 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh

CRM-M-18677-2026 -2of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon and hence, she is entitled to the concession of bail.

3.

The learned State counsel contends that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are of issuance of fictitious gate passes. He however does not dispute the factual position that the owners of the mill have been granted the concession of anticipatory bail vide order dated 02.04.2026, on account of rechecking having been ordered by the Civil Court. He also concedes that the petitioner is in custody since 17.02.2026 but the challan has not yet been submitted.

4.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5.

Admittedly, the petitioner was the Secretary of the Marketing Committee, Karnal. The owners of the mill have been granted the concession of anticipatory bail vide order dated 02.04.2026. As the investigation has not yet been completed, the Trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded in the near future. In this situation the further incarceration of the petitioner is not required.

6.

Thus without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and petitioner Asha Rani D/o Mamu Ram is ordered to be released on bail subject to her furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned CJM/Duty Magistrate, concerned. 7.

The petition stands disposed of.

(JASJIT SINGH BEDI) 16.04.2026 JUDGE Kusum Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No KUSUM 2026.04.17 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh