JUDGMENT : ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 8 12.01.2025 Machhiwara, District Khanna 406, 420 IPC 1. The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS],, seeking anticipatory bail. 2. In paragraph 15 of the bail petition, the accused declares that she has no criminal antecedents. 3. The facts and allegations are being taken from translated version of FIR, which reads as follows: “To, Honorable DSP Sahib, Samrala. Subject: Regarding cheating of ?4,50,000 under the pretext of sending my son abroad (Italy). (Major Singh 99156-47969). Sir, it is respectfully submitted that I, Seema Rani, wife of Jasvir Singh alias Jassi, resident of Bajigar Basti, Ropar Road, Machhiwara Sahib, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana. I wanted to send my son Jashandeep Singh abroad (Italy). Therefore, I spoke to Major Singh, son of Charanjit Singh, resident of Village Hambowal Bet, currently residing in Sunder Nagar, Machhiwara, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana. He told me that he helps people go abroad. We agreed on 10 lakh for sending my son to Italy. Major Singh assured me that he would send my son abroad (Italy) soon. He took my son Jashandeep Singh's passport and other documents and kept them with him. Then, Major Singh asked me for 2 lakh. On 22.08.2023, I went to the house of Satinderjit Bajwa, son of Kashmir Singh, resident of Kotla Bet, and gave him the money in cash in the presence of Satinderjit Bajwa. Major Singh gave me a 2 lakh check from Capital Small Finance Bank, Machhiwara Sahib, as security. I am attaching a photocopy of the check with this application. After about a month, Major Singh asked me for ?50,000. As per his request, I went to his house and gave the money in cash to his wife Paramjit Kaur in the presence of Vipin Kumar, resident of Machhiwara Sahib. Then, Major Singh told me that my son's visa has been approved and asked me to arrange ?1,30,000 quickly and give it to him. So, I went to Major Singh's house and gave ?1,30,000 to his mother Surjit Kaur in the presence of Vipin Kumar, resident of Machhiwara Sahib. Major Singh took Rs. 70,000 from me in the name of the air tickets. So, I went to Major Singh's house and gave ?1,30,000 to his mother Surjit Kaur in the presence of Vipin Kumar, resident of Machhiwara Sahib. Major Singh took Rs. 70,000 from me in the name of the air tickets. Then Major Singh took my son Jashandeep Singh with him and went to Delhi, after which he brought my son back with him and started demanding another Rs. 5 lakh from me. Then he WhatsApp me the photo of the ticket. When we checked the ticket, it turned out to be fake. After that, Major Singh started making all sorts of excuses. In this regard, on 11.09.2024, a compromise was reached in the presence of mediators, in which Major Singh agreed to return Rs. 4,50,000/-. Out of which, Rs. 2 lakh were to be given on 15.09.24 and the remaining Rs. 2,50,000 were to be paid within 3 months. But after that, Major Singh did not return my money. He has been continuously making excuses. I had filed a complaint against Major Singh, during the investigation of which Major Singh verbally promised to return my money soon. But now, whenever I ask Major Singh, his wife Paramjit Kaur, and mother Surjit Kaur for my money back, they threaten me. They abused me and said that I can do whatever I want, they will not return my money. Please take legal action against Major Singh, his wife Paramjit Kaur, and mother Surjit Kaur for defrauding me of Rs.4,50,000/- under the pretext of sending my son Jashandeep Singh abroad and get me justice. I will be very grateful to you. Yours sincerely Seema Rani (wife of Jasveer Singh @ JC, resident of Bazigar Basti Ropar Road Machhiwara Sahib 89686-18519).” 4. The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family. 5. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the status report. 6. It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the status report, which read as follows: “B. The evidence against the petitioner: That the role of the present petitioner is corroborated through: (i) The complainant's statement naming her specifically as the person to whom Rs. 5. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the status report. 6. It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the status report, which read as follows: “B. The evidence against the petitioner: That the role of the present petitioner is corroborated through: (i) The complainant's statement naming her specifically as the person to whom Rs. 50,000/- was handed over; (ii) The statement of witness Vipin Kumar who confirmed that the amount was received by the petitioner at the residence of the accused persons; (iii) The notarised affidavit dated 11-09-2024 executed by co- accused Major Singh admitting total receipt of Rs. 4,50,000/-and promising refund; and (iv) The further written undertaking dated 26-09-2024, confirming partial refund and continued liability. C. The role of the petitioner: That the petitioner Paramjit Kaur, in connivance with her husband Major Singh and mother-in-law Surjit Kaur, played an active role in the offence by directly receiving Rs. 50,000/- in cash from the complainant. She thereby participated in the act of obtaining a portion of the total Rs. 4,50,000/- collected under the pretext of arranging foreign travel for the complainant's son. The coordinated conduct of the petitioner and her co-accused led to wrongful gain to themselves and wrongful loss to the complainant, supported by independent witness testimony and documentary material.” REASONING: 7. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has joined the investigation and she is not the main accused and she has been roped in only because she is the wife of the main accused Major Singh. 8. Pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. The evidence might be prima facie sufficient to launch prosecution or to frame charges, but this Court is not considering the evidence at that stage but is analyzing it for the stage of anticipatory bail. An analysis of the above does not justify custodial interrogation or pre-trial incarceration. 9. Given the above, the penal provisions invoked coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for custodial interrogation or the pre-trial incarceration at this stage, subject to the compliance of terms and conditions mentioned in this order. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail. This order shall come into force from the time it is uploaded on this Court's official webpage. 10. Given above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail in the FIR captioned above subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, and if the matter is before a Court, then the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Officer/Court must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused. 11. While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following personal identification details: 1. AADHAR number 2. Passport number (If available) and when the attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk. 3. Mobile number (If available) 4. E-Mail id (If available) 12. This order is subject to the petitioner’s complying with the following terms. 13. The petitioner is directed to join the investigation within seven days of uploading this order on the official webpage of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and as and when called by the Investigator. The petitioner shall be in deemed custody for Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/ Section 23 of BSA, 2023. The petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer or any Superior Officer and shall cooperate with the investigation at all further stages as required. In the event of failure to do so, the prosecution will be open to seeking cancellation of the bail. During the investigation, the petitioner shall not be subjected to third-degree, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc. 14. In case the Investigator/Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Station arraigns another section of any penal offense in this FIR, and if the new section prescribes a maximum sentence that is not greater than the sections mentioned above, then this bail order shall be deemed to have also been passed for the newly added section(s). 14. In case the Investigator/Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Station arraigns another section of any penal offense in this FIR, and if the new section prescribes a maximum sentence that is not greater than the sections mentioned above, then this bail order shall be deemed to have also been passed for the newly added section(s). However, suppose the newly inserted sections prescribe a sentence exceeding the maximum sentence prescribed in the sections mentioned above; then, in that case, the Investigator/Officer-In-Charge shall give the petitioner notice of a minimum of seven days, providing an opportunity to avail the remedies available in law. 15. This bail is conditional, and the foundational condition is that if the petitioner indulges in any non-bailable offense, the State shall file an application for cancellation of this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall be at liberty to cancel this bail. 16. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 17. A certified copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Petitioner can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. If the attesting officer wants to verify its authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds. 18. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.