JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. 1. Applicant-Priyanka Thakur has filed the present bail application, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as‘BNSS’), as she is apprehending her arrest, in case FIR No. 65 of 2024, dated 23 rd February, 2024, registered under Sections 420, 406 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’), with Police Station Sadar Una, District Una, H.P. 2. By way of the present application, the applicant has sought the indulgence of this Court, to direct the Investigating Officer/police of Police Station Sadar, Una, to release her on bail, in the event of her arrest, in the above-noted case. 3. According to the applicant, she is innocent person and has falsely been implicated, in this case, by the police. 4. As per the applicant, she has not committed the alleged offence. The applicant is stated to be the permanent resident of District Una and having no criminal antecedents. 5. The applicant has given certain undertakings, for which, the she is ready to abide by, in case, any direction is issued to the police/Investigating Officer, under Section 482 of the BNSS. 6. The applicant has earlier tried her luck, by filing similar bail application, before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Una, District Una, however, her bail application has been rejected, vide order, dated 17 th December, 2024. 7. On the basis of the above facts, Mr. Pramod Singh Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, has prayed that the present application may be allowed and the applicant may be ordered to be released on bail, in the event of her arrest, in the above-noted case. 8. On 8 th January, 2025, when notice was issued, the police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 23 rd February, 2024, SI Gurdeep Singh, Incharge, Police Post City, Una, was on patrolling duty and at about 05.40 p.m., when, he was present on Una-Rampur Road, then, complainant-Narender Singh, alongwith the other persons, who had jointly moved the application, made a complaint against Priyanka (applicant), disclosing therein, that said Priyanka Thakur (applicant) is Director of Seven Emirates Nidhi Limited. 8.1. According to the complainants, they haddeposited a sum of Rs. 11,55,700/- in total, with the applicant and now, she has closed her office, for the last 10-11 months. 8.1. According to the complainants, they haddeposited a sum of Rs. 11,55,700/- in total, with the applicant and now, she has closed her office, for the last 10-11 months. When, the complainants are visiting the said office, the same is found to be closed and when contacted, on phone, she assured them to return their money. 8.2. Now, according to the complainants, the applicant has stopped attending their calls. The applicant is stated to have running her office in a rented accommodation and now, the said premises is closed. 8.3. As per the case of the complainants, said Priyanka Thakur (applicant) has embezzled their amount and a prayer has been made to take action against her. 9. On the basis of the above facts, the police registered the case, under Section 420 & 406 IPC and the police machinery swung into motion. 10. After perusing the said status report, the interim protection was granted to the applicant, with a direction to join the investigation and the case was ordered to be taken up on 10 th January, 2025. 11. Thereafter, the police has filed the supplementary status report on 23 rd January, 2025, disclosing therein, that the applicant has joined the investigation earlier on 3 rd October, 2024 and 10 th October, 2024, in pursuance of the directions of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Una and now, on 10 th January, 2025 and 13 th January, 2025, in pursuance of the directions of this Court. 12. As per the said status report, during investigation, original cheque book, photocopies of FDRs, original vouchers, original passbooks and receipts of shares, were produced by the applicant, which were taken into possession. Similarly, requisite documents, regarding her account with YES Bank, Una, were also obtained. On 26 th October, 2024, the applicant is stated to have produced the stamp of Seven Emirates Nidhi Limited, which was also taken into possession. 13. In the status report, filed on 3rd March, 2025, it has been mentioned that on 25 th February, 2025, the applicant was directed to join the investigation on 26 th February, 2025, but, she did not join the investigation on 26 th February, 2025 and stated that she will join the investigation on 27 th February, 2025, on which date also, she did not appear. 14. 14. It is the stand of the police that neither the applicant has disclosed as to how many employees were working with her, nor, she is disclosing the names and addresses of the said persons. She is stated to be a very clever person. 15. According to the police, the amount of Rs.12,00,000/- has not yet bee recovered, from the applicant. 16. Today, the police has filed the fresh status report, disclosing therein, the similar facts and prayed that the bail application may kindly be dismissed. 17. Heard. 18. The documentary evidence, in this case, is now with the police. So far as the non-recovery of a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- is concerned, the bail application cannot be turned into recovery proceedings, as, in the status reports, which have been filed, on various dates, nothing has been uttered, as to why the custodial interrogation of the applicant is required, in this case. 19. The applicant, in pursuance of the directions, issued by this Court, while granting interim protection to her, has joined the investigation and the documents have been taken into possession by the police, as such, no useful purpose would be served by rejecting her bail application. 20. Moreover, except the present case, no other criminal history of the applicant has been pleaded nor argued, during the course of the arguments. 21. The role, which has been attributed to the applicant, in the crime in question, will be proved during the course of trial and the bail application cannot be rejected as matter of punishment, as, the same would amount to pre-trial punishment, which is prohibited under the law. 22. Considering all these facts, this Court is of the view that the order, dated 8 th January, 2025, granting interim protection to the applicant, is liable to be made absolute. 23. Consequently, interim order, dated 8 th January, 2025, is made absolute, subject to the following conditions: a) That the applicant will join the investigation of the case, as and when, called for, by the Investigating Officer, in accordance with law. b) That the applicant will not leave India, without prior permission of the Court. c) That the applicant will not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person, acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Investigating Officer or the Court. b) That the applicant will not leave India, without prior permission of the Court. c) That the applicant will not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person, acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Investigating Officer or the Court. d) That the applicant shall regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application. 24. Any of the observations, made hereinabove, shall not be taken as an expression of opinion, on the merits of the case, as these observations, are confined, only, to the disposal of the present bail application. 25. The applicant is directed to move regular bail application, when charge sheet will be filed in the Competent Court of Law. 26. It is made clear that the respondent-State is at liberty to move an appropriate application, in case, any of the bail conditions, is found to be violated by the applicant.