CRM-M/29858/2026 of SIMRAN KAUR ALIAS SEEMA RANI Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 24 August 2026

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.586 dated 6.11.2025 under Sections 199, 308(6) & 61 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 & Sections 7 and 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Sirsa.

2. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present petition by the petitioner) is as follows:- ‘To: Superintendent of Police, Sirsa. Number 335 / Reader: Date: 06-11- 25 Subject: Regarding registration of case and taking departmental action against Sub-Inspector Jagdish Chandra No. 774/ Sirsa, Assistant Sub- Inspector Vijay and complainant Simran Kaur alias Seema resident of Sardulgarh under Section 61(2), 199 (3) BNS and Section 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Misconduct Act, 1988. In reference to the above subject, after receiving secret information from reliable sources, I took cognizance and conducted inquiry. Sub-Inspector Jagdish Chandra No. 774/ Sirsa himself wrote his statement with his own pen, signed it and presented before me. Apart from this, Sub-Inspector Jagdish Bandar No. 774/ Sirsa presented a signed letter regarding the complaint given by complainant Simran Kaur daughter of Sukha Singh resident of Sardulgarh on 31.10.2025 and not taking any legal action in relation to the complaint later. That on 31.10.2025, the complainant Simran Kaur alias Seema daughter of Sukha Singh resident of Sardulgarh had come to the police station and given a complaint to Sub Inspector Jagdish Chandra No. 774/ Sirsa about taking action against respondent Pawan Bansal by accusing him of rape. The above-mentioned complaint was neither entered in the CCTNS by Sub-Inspector Jagdish Chandra No. 774/ Sirsa in the police station nor was the acknowledgement receipt provided to the complainant. Whereas the higher authorities have clearly given orders to give an acknowledgement receipt to the complainant in relation to each complaint and to upload the same in the CCTNS by getting it marked to the concerned investigating officer of the police station. Apart from this, during the investigation it has come to light that on 01.11.2025, Sub Inspector Jagdish Chandra No. 774/Sirsa, after talking to the respondent Pawan Bansal through Sub Inspector Vijay, Assistant Reader, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Law and Order, took Rs. 2 lakh 30 thousand through Sub Inspector Vijay and instead of taking legal action and by colluding with the complainant, pressurized the respondent Pawan Bansal and settled the matter by taking the money. No entry was made in any record of the police station regarding the above complaint. Even according to his written statement, Sub Inspector Jagdish Chandra No. 774/Sirsa has admitted to keeping Rs. 10 thousand out of the above amount for himself and giving the remaining amount to the complainant Simran Kaur alias Seema. Apart from this, a recording has been made in connection with the above case in which Sub Inspector Jagdish Chandra No. 774/Sirsa and Assistant Sub Inspector Vijay are visible. In the video recording, Assistant Sub Inspector Vijay is clearly seen sitting in the car and giving 4 bundles of 500-500 rupee notes and 3 bundles of 100-100 rupee notes, totalling Rs. 2 lakh 30 thousand, to Sub Inspector Jagdish Chandra No. 774/Sirsa. Therefore, considering the above facts and evidence, I recommend filing a case against Sub Inspector Jagdish

Chandra No. 774/Sirsa, Assistant Sub Inspector Vijay and complainant Simran Kaur alias Seema resident of Sardulgarh under sections 61 (2), 199 (3) BNS and sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and taking departmental action. Attached documents: 1. Complaint Simran Kaur 2. Letter regarding non-action Simran Kaur 3. Attention Sub Inspector Jagdish Chandra 774/Sirsa 4. Pen drive recording SD RAJESH (Rajesh Kumar H.P.S.) Deputy Superintendent of Police Sadar and CAW Sirsa DT 06/11/25.’

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 3.12.2025. Learned counsel has further urged that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further argued that co-accused, namely Jagdish Chander, Kanchan and Vijay Singh have afforded the concession of regular bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 7.5.2026 passed in CRM-M No.17208 of 2026 & CRM-M No.19816 of 2026 and dated 15.5.2026 passed in CRM-M No.26619 of 2026 respectively. Learned counsel has further urged that the petitioner is a lady aged 23 years. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel had filed status report dated 6.7.2026. The same is already on record. Raising submissions in tandem with the said status report, learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 21.8.2026 in Court, which is taken on record.

5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

6. The petitioner was arrested on 3.12.2025 wherein after investigation was carried out; challan was prepared on 26.12.2025 and subsequently filed. Total 16 prosecution witnesses have been cited, out of which, it is conceded case that only 3 have been fully examined and 01 has been partly examined till date. It is thus indubitable that culmination of trial will take its own time. It is not in dispute that co-accused namely Jagdish Chander, Kanchan and Vijay Singh have afforded the concession of regular bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 7.5.2026 passed in CRM-M No.17208 of 2026 and 15.5.2026 passed in CRM-M No.26619 of 2026. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. 6.1 The petitioner is a lady aged about 23 years (As per memo of parties appended with the petition), hence, bail petition ought to be considered in view of proviso to Section 480 BNSS.
It is pertinent to mention herein that the proviso to Section 480 BNSS, 2023, is pari materia with proviso to Section 437 Cr.P.C., 1973. In this regard, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by this Court on 14.03.2024 in CRM-M-11503-2024 titled as ‘Ravinder Kaur Vs. State of Punjab’ (dealing with proviso to Section 437 Cr.P.C.), relevant thereof reads as under: “It would be apposite to refer herein to the dicta of a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of ‘Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., 2022(10) SCC 51’ , which held as under:

51. Proviso to Section 437 of the Code mandates that when the accused is under the age of sixteen years, sick or infirm or being a woman, is something which is required to be taken note of. Obviously, the court has to satisfy itself that the accused person is sick or infirm. In a case pertaining to women, the court is expected to show some sensitivity. We have already taken note of the fact that many women who commit cognizable offenses are poor and illiterate. In many cases, upon being young they have children to take care of, and there are many instances when the children are to live in prisons. The statistics would show that more than 1000 children are living in prisons along with their mothers. This is an aspect that the courts are expected to take note of as it would not only involve the interest of the accused, but also the children who are not expected to get exposed to the prisons. There is a grave danger of their being inherited not only with poverty but with crime as well. xxxx

xxxx

xxx

58. Section 437 of the Code empowers the Magistrate to deal with all the offenses while considering an application for bail with the exception of an offense punishable either with life imprisonment or death triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions. The first proviso facilitates a court to conditionally release on bail an accused if he is under the age of 16 years or is a woman or is sick or infirm, as discussed earlier. This being a welfare legislation, though introduced by way of a proviso, has to be applied while considering release on bail either by the Court of Sessions or the High Court, as the case may be. The power under Section 439 of the Code is exercised against an order rejecting an application for bail and against an offence exclusively decided by the Court of Sessions. There cannot be a divided application of proviso to Section 437, while exercising the power under Section

439. While dealing with a welfare legislation, a purposive interpretation giving the benefit to the needy person being the intendment is the role required to be played by the court. We do not wish to state that this proviso has to be considered favourably in all cases as the application depends upon the facts and circumstances contained therein. What is required is the consideration per se by the court of this proviso among other factors.’

6.2 As per custody certificate dated 21.8.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 8 months and 17 days. As per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is stated to be involved in 01 another FIR(s). Indubitably, the antecedents of a person are required to be accounted for while considering a regular bail petition preferred by her. However, this factum cannot be a ground

sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191.

Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.

7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on her furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.

(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.

(iii) The petitioner shall not absent herself on any date before the trial.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

(v) The petitioner shall deposit her passport, if any, with the trial Court.

(vi) The petitioner shall give her cellphone number to the

Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change her cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.

(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.

8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

9. Ordered accordingly.

10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

(SUMEET GOEL)

JUDGE 24.8.2026 Ashwanii Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable:

Yes/No