[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Namrita Aery vs State Of Haryana on 22 April, 2026
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
CRM-M-2731-2026
::1::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
(111+211)
Date of decision: 22.04.2026
CRM-M-2731-2026
Namrita Aery ...... Petitioner
V/S
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CRM-M-17484-2026 (O&M)
Vikrant Aery @ Vikrant Sharma ...... Petitioner
V/S
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. Shailender Singh, Advocate,
Ms. Priya Bhati, Advocate and
Mr. Vikas Chaudhary, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Vipul Sherwal, AAG Haryana.
*****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)
CRM-17032-2026 in CRM-M-17484-2026
This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 is for
correction in the head note and prayer clause of the main petition i.e. CRM-
M-17484-2026 by substituting the word "First Bail petition" with Second
Bail Petition" and for placing on record the Amended Petition as Annexure
P-7 and the first bail dismissal order as Annexure P-8.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is
allowed.The words "First Bail Petition" in the head note as well as in the
prayer clause of the main petition i.e. CRM-M-17484-2026 shall be read as
"Second Bail Petition" and Annexures P-7 and P-8 are taken on record.
CRM-M-2731-2026
::2::
CRM-M-2731-2026 & CRM-M-17484-2026
The prayer in these petitions under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 is
for the grant of the regular bail to the petitioners in FIR No.2 dated
01.01.2025 under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 61 of BNS, 2023 and Sections
10, 24 of the Emigration Act, 1983 added later on registered at Police Station
Yamuna Nagar City, District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana.
2. As per the prosecution case, the petitioners received a sum of
Rs.26,00,000 to send the complainant to Canada. However, after receiving
the money, the complainant was not sent to Canada.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the
petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. They have now
been in custody since 10.03.2025 and only 04 of the 12 prosecution
witnesses have been examined, including the material witnesses. As the case
is triable by the Court of a Magistrate, they are entitled to the concession of
bail.
4. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has filed a
reply dated 20.04.2026, which is taken on record. While referring to the said
reply, he contends that a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- was paid into the account of
petitioner-Namrita Aery and Rs.6,00,000/- was paid in cash to petitioner-
Vikrant Aery @ Vikrant Sharma. However, the complainant was not sent
abroad. Additionally, the petitioners are accused in two other cases of a
similar nature and are facing numerous complaints, where the allegations
levelled against them are somewhat similar. Therefore, the petitioners are
not entitled to the concession of bail. He, however, concedes that the
KUSUM
2026.04.22 20:07
petitioners have now been in custody since 10.03.2025, that 04 of the 12
CRM-M-2731-2026
::3::
prosecution witnesses have been examined, including the material witnesses
and that the case is triable by the Court of a Magistrate.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. This Court in the case titled as Maninder Sharma Vs. State Tax
Officer, State, Mobile Wing, Jalandhar, Punjab bearing CRM-M24033-
2021(O&M) Decided on 31.08.2022 has held as under:-
"Therefore, broadly speaking (subject to any statutory
restrictions contained in Special Acts) , in economic offences
involving the IPC or Special Acts or cases triable by
Magistrates once the investigation is complete, final
report/complaint filed and the triple test is satisfied then denial
of bail must be the exception rather than the rule. However, this
would not prevent the Court from granting bail even prior to
the completion of investigation if the facts so warrant."
7. The veracity of the prosecution case against the petitioners and
their co-accused shall be adjudicated during the course of the Trial.
Admittedly, the petitioners are in custody since 10.03.2026 but only 04 of
the 12 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. Therefore, the
Trial in the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon. The
present case is triable by the Court of a Magistrate and no serious
apprehension has been expressed by the State that the petitioners would
abscond from justice, tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses if
granted the concession of bail. Therefore, in this situation, the further
incarceration of the petitioners is not required.
8. Thus, without commenting upon the merits of the case, the
2026.04.22 20:07 presents petitions are allowed and the petitioners, namely, Namrita Aery and
CRM-M-2731-2026
::4::
Vikrant Aery @ Vikrant Sharma are ordered to be released on bail to the
satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.
9. The present petitions stand disposed of.
10. The petitioners shall appear before the police station concerned
on the first Monday of every month till the conclusion of the trial and inform
in writing each time that they are not involved in any other crime other than
the cases mentioned in this order.
11. In addition, the petitioners (or anyone on his behalf) shall
prepare an FDR in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each and deposit the same with
the Trial Court. The same would be liable to be forfeited as per law in case
of the absence of the petitioners from trial without sufficient cause.
12. The pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of
accordingly.
13. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of the connected
case.
April 22, 2026 ( JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
kusum JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
