Reetika Mahajan v. State Of Haryana

-1- CRM-M-35570-2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-35570-2025 Date of decision: 04.08.2025 REETIKA MAHAJAN ... Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA .. Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. GREWAL
 Mr. Siddharth Pandit, Advocate for the petitioner. *** H.S. Grewal, J. (Oral)
  The present petition has been filed under Section 483 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 seeking regular bail in FIR No.057 dated 19.03.2025 under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2) of BNS and Section 241 of BNS added later on, registered at Police Station Sector-14, District Panchkula (Haryana) by setting aside impugned order dated 01.07.2025 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula. 2.

The case of the prosecution is that the complainant who is the Branch Manager of bank has submitted a complaint that M/s. JK Machine Tool and M/s. Pure Care Laundry have connived with each other and the petitioner and her co-accused have duped the complainant-Bank by embezzling the amount paid for purchasing the machinery etc. The allegations against the petitioner are that Rs.39 lakhs was received in her account on the basis of forged and fabricated quotations of JK Machine Tools in order to get the loan amount sanctioned.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is in custody for more than 03 months and trial is yet to commence. 4.

Notice of motion.

Sonia Puri 2025.08.07 13:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

-2- CRM-M-35570-2025 5.

Mr. Amrik Narwal, DAG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State.

6.

Learned counsel for the State by way of filing custody certificate dated 01.08.2025 vehemently opposes the grant of concession of regular bail and does not refute the fact that the petitioner is in custody for more than 03 months and 01 day and trial proceedings are yet to commence. 7.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record.

8.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, and the fact that the custody period undergone by the petitioner is more than 03 months and 01 day and also the fact that trial is yet to begin and also conclusion of the trial is likely to take a long time, therefore further incarceration of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice. This Court deems it fit to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. 9.

Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is granted concession of regular bail in the present case, on her furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/ Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. The pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 10.

It is however, made clear that in case during her bail, the petitioner indulges in any offence, the State shall be at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

02nd August, 2025 (H.S. GREWAL) Sonia Puri JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether Reportable :

Yes/No Sonia Puri 2025.08.07 13:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document