Tanveer Sandhu v. State Of Haryana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Sr. No.212 Case No. : CRM-M-45683-2025 Decided On : October 28, 2025 Tanveer Sandhu ....
Petitioner vs.
State of Haryana ....
Respondent CORAM :
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR.
* * * Present :
Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Pawan Kumar Garg, DAG, Haryana.
* * * SUKHVINDER KAUR , J.
:
Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.110 dated 15.04.2025, under Sections 406, 420 IPC, registered at Police Station Ram Nagar, District Karnal.
The brief facts of the case are that the aforesaid FIR was registered on the basis of complaint made by complainant namely Balwinder Singh, stating therein that he was planning to go abroad and in this connection, his friend Paras introduced him with Sumit and his wife Tanveer (present petitioner) and both of them persuaded the complainant to send him to USA on work permit. For this work, they demanded an amount of Rs.22 lakhs, to be paid within a period of five months. Believing their version, the
complainant deposited Rs.4,03,000/- in their accounts and also paid Rs.7,50,000/- in cash, besides giving them a mobile phone worth Rs.50,000/-. The passport of the complainant was taken by them for getting the needful done but they failed to provide USA visa or work permit to the complainant. When the complainant asked for return of his money, they threatened him with dire consequences. With the aforesaid allegations, the FIR in question was registered against the petitioner and her husband Sumit, who was arrested on 15.07.2024 and suffered disclosure statement regarding involvement of his wife in the present case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present FIR, being wife of aforesaid Sumit but in fact, she never met the complainant and had no knowledge about the alleged transaction. It was also contended that petitioner was totally unaware about some of the amount got deposited by her husband into her account. Learned counsel further contended that the petitioner is not required for any interrogation and no recovery is to be effected from her. She is ready to join investigation and prayed that she be granted concession of anticipatory bail.
On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the present bail petition while contending that there are serious allegations against the petitioner. She, in collusion with her husband, had committed offence of cheating the complainant of huge amount of Rs.12,03,000/-, as detailed above. However, neither the work permit or Visa for USA was provided to the complainant, nor his hard earned money was returned. In these circumstances, if the petitioner is granted concession of anticipatory bail, she
may abscond or may not co-operate with the investigation. Her custodial interrogation is required to dig out the truth and to recover complainant's money. Moreover, as per official record, another FIR No.127 of 2025, under Sections 316(2), 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 was found registered against the petitioner at Police Station Old Industrial, Panipat, District Panipat. So, she does not deserve concession of anticipatory bail.
Heard.
The main allegations in the present case have been levelled against co-accused Sumit Ahuja, who happens to be the husband of the petitioner. The major amount duped from the complainant was allegedly taken by co-accused Sumit Ahuja. As per the Account Statement, which has been annexed with the Status Report, sum of about Rs.1,62,000/- had been transferred in the account of the petitioner and the remaining amount had been received by co-accused Sumit Ahuja. Even as per the contents of the complaint, submitted by the complainant, on the basis of which FIR was registered, it has been alleged that it was co-accused Sumit Ahuja, who had told the complainant that he would sent him to USA on work permit and had demanded Rs.22 lakhs for the same.
Co-accused Sumit Ahuja had already been arrested in the present case. As far as another case i.e. FIR No.127 of 2025, under Sections 316(2), 318(4) of BNS, 2023 is concerned, the petitioner had already been granted concession of anticipatory bail in the said case vide order dated 08.05.2025 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-180742025 titled Tanveer Sandhu vs. State of Haryana. As custodial
interrogation of the petitioner is not required, no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars. Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. In the event of arrest, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, on furnishing bail/surety bonds, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer, subject to the conditions, as provided under Section 482(2) of BNSS. It will be open for the Investigating Officer to call the petitioner to join investigation, if so required, by issuing a written notice in this regard. The petitioner shall also abide by the conditions mentioned in Section 482(2) of the BNSS. However, nothing observed herein above shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The observations recorded above are only for the purpose of deciding the present bail petition. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of along with the present petition.
October 28, 2025 (SUKHVINDER KAUR) monika JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned ?
Yes/No.
Whether reportable ?
Yes/No.