JUDGMENT Mr. K.C. Puri, J.:- Veena w/o Amar Singh, r/o House No. 38/22, Chawla Colony, P.S. Shivaji Colony, Rohtak has applied for grant of regular bail in case RC No. 5 (S)/2012/SCB/CHG dated 12.7.2012 under Sections 120-B IPC read with Sections 109, 313, 323, 354, 374, 376, 420, 468, 471 506 IPC and Section 23 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, registered at Police Station CBI, SCB, Chandigarh. 2. As per allegation against the petitioner, she has given a child in adoption belonging to ‘Apna Ghar’ and had issued receipt of Rs. 11,000/- and Rs.10,000/-. The other allegations against the petitioner as per CBI are that she was in the knowledge of the acts being conducted in ‘Apna Ghar’. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is in custody for the last about 1 year and 10 months. She has a minor child to look after. The allegations against the petitioner are not substantiated. It is further submitted that she was simply an employee of ‘Apna Ghar’ and has issued receipt of Rs.21,000/- on instructions of main accused Jaswanti. She has not embezzled even a single penny. He has further submitted that residents of ‘Apna Ghar’ have made statement before the CBI that they have been looked after properly by the petitioner and were being taught by her. He has further contended that she was simply an employee on payment of meager amount. She is a deserted wife and has to work on that account. 4. The CBI counsel has opposed the prayer and has submitted that PW-40 Jagdish Lal has stated that he paid Rs.21,000/- to the petitioner for adopting a child and receipts were issued on behalf of Bharat Vikas Sangh. It is further submitted that PW Rukhsar has stated that Veena was knowing the fact what was happening in ‘Apna Ghar’. It is further submitted that statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was made by PW-5 Renu that Veena was playing active role. 5. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for both the sides and have gone through the record of the case. 6. In the nutshell the allegations against the petitioner are that she was an employee of ‘Apna Ghar’ and was in the knowledge of what was happening there. 5. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for both the sides and have gone through the record of the case. 6. In the nutshell the allegations against the petitioner are that she was an employee of ‘Apna Ghar’ and was in the knowledge of what was happening there. However, none of the witnesses in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have stated that Veena herself has sexually harassed any of the inhabitants of ‘Apna Ghar’. Even some of the inhabitants have stated that Veena was looking after them and given them education. So far as the factum of adoption is concerned, it is not the case of CBI that she has embezzled any amount regarding adoption. Being employee she had issued receipt on behalf of Bharat Vikas Sangh, which was in favour of Jagdish Lal, the person who has adopted the child. ‘Apna Ghar’ was regulated by the main accused Jaswanti and her family members. The allegations of sexual harassment to the inhabitants are against Jai Bhagwan, Jaswanti and others. The allegation against the petitioner is that she was in the knowledge of the said fact. However, it is not clear on what evidence the witnesses have stated that she was in the knowledge of the said fact. 7. The petitioner is in custody for the last about 1 year and 10 months. The trial is not likely to be concluded at an early date. 8. So considering whole of the circumstances, the application for grant of bail to Veena stands accepted. She is ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of CBI Magistrate. 9. The petition stands disposed of. ---------0.B.S.0------------