Sheetal v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH 107-1 
 

 DATE OF DECISION: 27.01.2026 

........Petitioner

VERSUS



  ......Respondent

CORAM

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA

Present

Mr. Vipin Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.  Mr. Karan Veer Singh, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

*** SUBHAS MEHLA, J (ORAL) 1.

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of BNSS seeking grant of anticipatory bail filed in case bearing FIR No.312 dated 24.07.2025 under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338 and 340 of BNS, 2023 registered at Police Station Chandimandir, Panchkula. 2.

The allegations against the present petitioner is that the petitioner defrauded the complainant and one Sanjeev Kumar, father of Shivam and obtained a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- on the pretext of getting them jobs in Indian Railways on contract basis. Petitioner also, handed over forged and fabricated appointment letter in the name of Indian Railways to the complainant and to Sanjeev Kumar i.e. the father of Shivam.

 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that a compromise by way of an affidavit, has been effected with the complainant and has placed a copy of the same (Annexure P-2) in this regard; the petitioner has clean antecedents; she is willing to join and cooperate with the investigation. 4.

Notice of motion.

5.

On advance notice, Mr. Karan Veer Singh, Sr. DAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and by way of filing of reply dated 21.01.2026 submits that the present petitioner is the main accused and has played active role in the commission of alleged offence as she fraudulently assured the complainant and other victim to get a job and also handed over forged and fabricated documents to them. It is further submitted that the money was received in her account and she deposited an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- into the account of co-accused namely Rohit and Rs.1,75,000/- into the account of co-accused namely, Neeraj; there are allegations of forgery as appointment letter was found forged and fictitious and as such, prays for custodial interrogation of the present petitioner so as to know the modus operandi of the petitioner regarding cheating unemployed persons on the pretext of providing them jobs in lieu of money. 6.

Heard. 7.

Without commenting on the merits of the case and keeping in view the allegations against the present petitioner, the contentions of learned counsel for the State; the gravity of the offence that the present petitioner is involved in a racket with other co-accused by cheating unemployed persons

 on the pretext of providing them jobs; the fact that the petitioner received an amount from the complainant and provided the complainant with appointment later which, later on was found to be forged and fictitious, this Court does not find any merit to allow the petition for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7.

Anticipatory bail is an extra-ordinary relief which can be granted only in exceptional cases deserving of the concession, and is to be granted sparingly, much less in serious offences as those alleged in the present case. Recently, Hon'ble Apex Court in Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar, 2024 INSC 202, has made the following observation with regard to concession of Anticipatory Bail:-
 

                      

                                                

                    

                                                       

       8.

Moreover, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for effecting proper investigation, hence petitioners are not entitled for discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. n "C.B.I. vs. Anil Sharma", 1997(7) SCC 187, the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized the importance of custodial interrogation by holding that many useful information and

 concealed materials may be elicited from a suspect in custody, than a suspect who is well-protected by an order of anticipatory bail, in which case, interrogation may be reduced to a mere ritual. 9.

In view of aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in the present petitions; the same is hereby dismissed. 10.

Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion by this Court lest it may prejudice the trial. The learned trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial on its own merits, strictly in accordance with law. 27.01.2026 (SUBHAS MEHLA) Sonia Puri JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No