Preeto vs State of Haryana

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)

“The instant petition under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 (438 of Cr.P.C.), has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner(s) in case FIR No.699 dated 28.11.2025, registered under Sections 420, 406 and 34 of IPC, at Police Station Industrial Sector 29, District Panipat.

Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) contended that the main allegation is against the co-accused Hari Krishan, who is son of petitioner Smt. Preeto (in CRM-M-73522-2025) and brother of petitioner-Balraj (in CRM-M-73534-2025). Learned counsel drew attention of this Court towards the affidavit executed between the complainant and co-accused Hari Krishan wherein, co-accused Hari Krishan undertook to pay back Rs.28 lakhs taken as loan from complainant by way of installments and nowhere it is mentioned that payment is to be made to complainant in lieu of his share in any property (Annexure P-5); petitioners are neither signatory nor witness to the same. It is also submitted that petitioner-Preeto is 60 years of age and both petitioners have clean and clear antecedents. Hence, learned counsel prayed for relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner(s).

Notice of motion.

Mr. Karan Veer Singh, Sr. DAG, Haryana puts in appearance as advance copy of petition had been served to respondent-State. Learned State counsel submits that the main allegations is against co-accused Hari Krishan and fairly admitted that the petitioner(s) are not involved in any other criminal activity except the present one.

Mr. Jarnail Singh Saneta, Advocate alongwith Mr. Nitish Kumar, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant in both the cases and has filed separate Vakalatnama in both cases, which are taken on record. He submits that all the family members are in collusion with each other and cheated the complainant; on the pretext of investment, co-accused extracted a sum of Rs.28 lakhs from the complainant, representing that a plot would be bought in the names of both, complainant as well as co-accused Hari Krishan to the extent of 2/3rd and 1/3rd share respectively, however, the plot was purchased in the name of mother of co-accused Hari Krishan i.e. accused/petitioner in CRM-M-73522-2025 (Smt. Preeto), and despite repeated asking of the complainant, co-accused Hari Krishan has not returned complainant’s money. Now, the accused are threatening the complainant in collusion with some persons, who are residing outside India.

Heard.

Keeping in view the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, particularly in view of the fact that the main allegation is against co-accused Hari Krishan; to return the amount in dispute, a writing has also been executed between the parties (Annexure P-5), wherein, the petitioner(s) are neither signatory nor witness to the same; thus, petitioners are directed to join investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer. In the event of arrest, the petitioner(s) be released on interim bail on furnishing personal bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer till the next date of hearing subject to the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of the BNSS (erstwhile Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.).

Adjourned to 17.02.2026.

In the meantime, State is directed to file reply regarding status of investigation, evidence collected and role of the petitioner(s).

A copy of this order be placed on the file of connected case.”