AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ekta ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SHEKHAWAT Present : Mr. Akashdeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Sidhu, Sr. DAG, Haryana N.S.SHEKHAWAT, J. (Oral)
The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to grant the concecession of anticipatory bail to him in case FIR No. 112 dated 17.06.2026, registered under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 24 of the Emigration Act, 1983, at Police Station Barauda, District Sonipat.
While issuing notice of motion on 13.08.2026, this Court has noticed the following contentions:-
“Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the name of the petitioner only appears in the title of the FIR, otherwise, no allegation has been levelled by the complainant against her. The petitioner had never met, communicated with or made any false representation to the complainant at any point of time. He further submits that all the transactions were made by the complainant directly either to Mohan or to Onkar Singh, both co-accused of the petitioner and the petitioner did not receive any amount from the complainant.
Without admitting her guilt and only with the limited purpose of showing her bonafide, the petitioner has produced a demand draft No.501633 dated 12.08.2026 drawn by ICICI Bank, for a sum of Rs.5 lakhs in favour of the complainant and submits that she is willing to handover the said amount to the complainant of the present case”.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has joined the investigation in the present case. He has also handed over a draft bearing No. 501633 for a sum of Rs. 5 lacs drawn on ICICI Bank to Aveen son of Ishwar Singh, complainant in the Court itself. A photocopy of this demand draft has been retained on the record as Mark A. Mr. Aveen son of Ishwar Singh has been identified by ASI Vinod Kumar, who is present in the Court.
Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation and is no longer required for further investigation.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
In view of the statement made by learned State counsel, the interim order dated 13.08.2026 is made absolute. The petitioner shall continue to join investigation, as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall also abide by the conditions as provided under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
23.09.2026 (N.S.SHEKHAWAT) amit rana JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No