Jagdeep Kaur v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH DECIDED ON: 19.02.2026 JAGDEEP KAUR .....PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA .....RESPONDENT

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH.

Present:

Mr. Harish Bhatti, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Lokesh Shivansh, Advocate, for Mr. G.C. Shahpuri, Advocate, for the complainant. SANJAY VASHISTH , J (ORAL) 1.

Present petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking grant of anticipatory bail, in case, FIR No.23, dated 11.02.2025, under Sections 120-B, 406, 420 of IPC, and Sections 10 and 24 of Immigration Act, registered at Police Station Jagadhri Sadar, District Yamuna Nagar. 2.

As per the allegations levelled in the FIR, a dispute had arisen regarding an amount of Rs.15 lacs between the petitioner-Jagdeep Kaur, and complainant-Lakhwinder Singh.

3.

On 08.07.2025, following order was passed by this Court:- "1.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the order dated 04.06.2025 (Annexure P-2) passed by the trial Court, whereby the anticipatory bail application of co-accused 'Kulwant Kaur' as well as the present petitioner, 'Jagdeep Kaur', was rejected,

-2submits that as per the observations recorded in para No.8 of the said order, bundles of currency notes were being delivered to Kulwant Kaur, which is evident from the video footage contained in the pen-drive. Counsel thus contends that since the petitioner is not specifically named therein, she is entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail.

2.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant submits that, in fact, the video clearly depicts the presence of both Kulwant Kaur and the present petitioner together at the time when the bundles of currency notes were handed over. He further points out that the petitioner, Jagdeep Kaur, is married in the village of the complainant, namely Lakhwinder Singh, and therefore, due to the implicit trust reposed in her, the complainant was induced by the petitioner to part with the money.

3.

In view of the above, let a status report be filed by the Investigating Officer concerned in the form of an affidavit, specifically after viewing the contents of the pen-drive as referred to in order dated 04.06.2025 (Annexure P-2), whereby the anticipatory bail applications of the co-accused as well as the petitioner were dismissed.

4.

List again on 07.08.2025."

4.

Today, on the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits at bar that dispute in the present case has been amicably resolved between the parties. On the basis of the said compromise, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the present case. 5.

On the other hand, learned State counsel, on instructions from SI Rajinder Kumar, submits that as per the statements recorded before the Court below, complainant has affirmed the genuineness of the compromise.

6.

Learned counsel for the complainant also acknowledges and confirms the factum of compromise having been arrived at between the parties.

-37.

In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties and considering the compromise effected between them, prayer made in the present petition is allowed. 8.

Accordingly, petitioner is directed to join the investigation within two weeks from today, or as and when called by the investigating agency, and in the eventuality of the arrest, petitioner would be released on anticipatory bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. The petitioner shall also be abide by all the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.).

9.

Besides, it is directed that petitioner would hand over his passport to the Investigating Agency or to Court concerned, if he possesses. Otherwise, would submit an affidavit, disclosing the fact that he does not possess any passport.

It is also directed that before leaving country any time during trial, petitioner would seek prior permission of the Court. (SANJAY VASHISTH) 19.02.2026 JUDGE Lavisha Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No