AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)
The prayer in the present petition preferred under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNSS’) is for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.61, dated 20.05.2026 registered at Police Station Garhi, District Jind under Sections 308(2), 308(6), 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNS’) .
Reply by way of affidavit of Sh. Kamaldeep Rana, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Narwana, District Jind, as also custody certificate dated 09.09.2026 filed in Court today are taken on record.
On a complaint submitted by one Malkiyat Singh, the FIR in question was registered, the translated version of which (as given in Annexure P-1) is as under:-
“Sir, it is requested that I, Malkiyat Singh S/o Amrik Singh, am a permanent resident of Dhamtan Sahib. My brother Randhir has a son named Naresh, who does farming and runs a milk dairy business in the village of Dhamtan Sahib. Naresh is married to Sarla Devi in the village of Kuchrana Kalan. From rla Devi Sarla's family, her brother Rampal works with my nephew Naresh at the dairy. Rampal is married to Soni Devi D/O Om Prakash, a resident of Dashmesh Colony, Yamunanagar. Soni Devi was also living at Naresh's dairy. Soni Devi and my nephew Naresh got to know each other. Both of them had also prepared documents for living in a live-in relationship, which were false documents prepared with the intention of extorting money and cheating by pretending to be in a relationship with my nephew Naresh. On 17/5/2026, Soni Devi demanded 03 lakh rupees from my nephew. When my nephew refused, Soni Devi threatened him, saying, "Either give me 03 lakh rupees or I will frame you in a rape case." Upon my nephew's refusal to give the money, Soni Devi has filed a false rape case no. 58 dated 17.05.2026 under Sections 64(1), 64(2)(1), 76, 3(5) BNS at Police Station Garhi against my nephew and others. Now, Soni Devi, her sister Sangeeta W/o Vinod, resident of Dashmesh Colony, Yamunanagar, and Soni Devi's mediator Seema W/o Ashok, resident of Jagadhri, Yamunanagar, all three together are demanding 6 lakh rupees from Naresh in exchange for a compromise. So far, Naresh has given them a sum of 02 lakh 50 thousand rupees. Out of this, 01 lakh 60 thousand rupees have been given to the three of them in cash, Rs.15,000/- has been sent in two installments to Sangeeta's Scanner (Google Pay), and in 02 installments (Rs.40,000 + Rs.35,000) 75 thousand rupees have been sent to Seema via Google Pay. All the money has been sent from Naresh's Google Pay number 98126-19300 and from Sunil, resident of Dhamtan Sahib's Google Pay number 93508-91398. The above-mentioned three accused are still demanding 3 lakh 50 thousand rupees from my nephew. The three women (Soni Devi, Sangeeta, and Seema) are trying to extort Rs.06 lakh rupees by falsely implicating my nephew Naresh and others in a rape case. It is requested from you, Sir, that the strictest possible legal action be taken against all three accused so that these women cannot frame anyone else in a false case. Thank you. SD Malkiyat Malkiyat Singh S/o Amrik Singh, resident of Dhamtan Sahib. Mob 7015838152”
Upon registration of the FIR, a raid was conducted on 20.05.2026. Three persons namely Sangeeta, Seema and Soni Devi were apprehended red handed and currency of Rs.3 lakhs which had been arranged by the raiding party was recovered from them. In furtherance of her disclosure statement, Rs.90,000/- is stated to have been recovered from the house of Seema. The fourth accused Sanjeev, who is also stated to be in association with the accused, has not been arrested.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. He submits that the FIR was got registered at the behest of Malkiyat Singh, who was not the victim and no complaint was given by Naresh from whom the alleged demand was being made. He submits that the antecedents of the petitioner are largely clean except for one case registered under Sections 420 and 379 IPC, in which she is on bail. He submits that the co-accused Seema has been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 11.08.2026 passed in CRM-M-43208-2026 and the case of the petitioner is on a better footing than that of the said Seema and the main accused is Soni Devi, who is in custody. He further submits that that the petitioner is in custody since 20.05.2026; 3 months and 18 days have elapsed; investigation stands completed and final report has been submitted; trial will take a sufficiently long time and therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer.
Per contra, learned State counsel and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application, stating that the allegations are very serious and in case the petitioner is released on bail, she may try to threaten and influence the witnesses and may also abscond.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
No doubt, the allegations are serious. The argument that the FIR was got registered at the instance of Malkiyat Singh is devoid of merit for, a cognizance offence can be reported by anyone. The main allegation is against Soni Devi, who is alleged to have got an FIR registered against Naresh under Section 376 IPC and was thereafter, demanding money to settle it. The said Soni Devi is in custody No doubt, the petitioner was also named in the FIR and was also present when the raid was conducted. As to whether the petitioner was involved in the crime or not shall be determined only when the trial concludes. She is in custody for the last 3 months and 18 days, she having been arrested on 20.05.2026; investigation stands completed; final report stands submitted, her antecedents are largely clean except for one case registered under Sections 420 and 379 IPC, in which she is on bail and the trial will take a sufficiently long time to conclude. No useful purpose would, therefore, be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer. Further, co-accused Seema has been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 11.08.2026 passed in CRM-M-43208-2026. The case of the petitioner is at par with the said co-accused, if not on a better footing.
In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on her furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.