Naina Chawla v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 30.03.2026 NAINA CHAWLA ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI

Present:

Mr. P.S. Jammu, Advocate with Mr. Santosh Kumar Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. M.S. Toor, AAG Punjab.

Mr. Manjot Singh, Advocate and Mr Ayush Goyal, Advocate for the complainant.

**** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

The prayer in the present petition under Section 483 BNSS is for the grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.0070 dated 09.06.2025 registered under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC and Section 24 of Immigration Act, at Police Station Division 3, District Ludhiana. 2.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties. As the petitioner is in custody since 01.08.2025 but none of the 11 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far, the Trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon and therefore, he is entitled to the concession of bail moreso

when she has been granted the concession of interim bail by this Court vide order dated 09.12.2025, which concession has not been misused. 3.

The learned counsel for the State submits that though a compromise has been arrived at between the parties, the allegations leveled against the petitioner do not entitle her to the concession of bail. He, however, concedes that the petitioner has been granted the interim bail by this Court vide order dated 09.12.2025 and that none of the 11 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far.

4.

The learned counsel for the complainant does not dispute the factum of a compromise having been arrived at between the parties and states that he has no objection, in case the interim bail granted to the petitioner is confirmed.

5.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6.

Admittedly, the parties have entered into a settlement. It was in this situation that the petitioner was granted the interim bail vide order dated 09.12.2025. The petitioner has neither misused the said concession nor has the counsel for the complainant denied the compromise. As the petitioner is in custody since 01.08.2025 but none of the 11 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far, the Trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon. In this situation, the further incarceration of the petitioner is not required.

7.

Thus, without commenting upon the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner, namely, Naina Chawla is

ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned upon furnishing fresh bail bonds/surety bonds. 8.

The petition stands disposed of.

(JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE 30.03.2026 kusum Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No