[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nagma Begam Alias Nagma Begum vs State Of Haryana on 15 January, 2026
CRM-1273-2026 in/&
CRM-M-58894-2025 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
114+217
CRM-1273-2026 in/&
CRM-M-58894-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 15.01.2026
Nagma Begam Alias Nagma Begum
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. Davinder Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Gautam Kaile, DAG Haryana
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)
CRM-1273-2026
For the reasons mentioned in the application, same is allowed.
Annexures P-6 to P-14 are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.
CRM-M-58894-2025 (O&M)
1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 BNSS is for
grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.115 dated 09.07.2025,
registered under Sections 318(4), 319, 336(3), 338, 340 BNS & 42(3)(e) of
Telecommunication Act at Police Station Cyber Crime, Nuh (Mewat), District
Nuh.
2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in custody
for more than 6 months. She alleges false implication. The allegations against
him are of having opened the accounts and selling the same to other persons,
however, in the present case, she is the sole accused and there is no evidence, of
whom she has sold such accounts. The offences are triable by Magistrate.
1 of 4
CRM-1273-2026 in/&
Charges have been framed on 06.01.2026, however, out of 16 prosecution
witnesses, none has been examined. The petitioner is involved in 1 more case,
wherein he has been granted anticipatory bail by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court
vide order dated 19.01.2024, Annexure P-6. Reliance is placed on the judgment
passed by Hon'ble The Supreme Court titled as Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi
vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382.
3. Status report along with custody certificate dated 12/14.01.2026,
filed by the learned State counsel are taken on record. As per the same, the
petitioner is behind bars for 6 months and 5 days.
4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that there are
specific allegations against the petitioner that she used to sell the accounts to
other persons, who used it for cyber crime. However, he is unable to controvert
the submissions with regard to stage and the petitioner being on bail in another
cases.
5. Heard.
6. Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Maulana Mohd. Amir
Rashadi (Supra)had held that, "As observed by the High Court, merely on the
basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be
rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the
accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such
as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court, etc."
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular
that the petitioner is in custody for the last 6 months and 5 days; on bail in
another case; it is case of magisterial trial; charges were framed on 06.01.2026,
2 of 4
CRM-1273-2026 in/&
however, out of 16 prosecution witnesses, none has yet been examined, the trial
is likely to take a considerable time, further incarceration of the petitioner would
be violative of her right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,
the present petition is allowed.
8. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to
furnishing bail/surety bonds along with two sureties one whom should be local,
to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in
any other case and shall abide by the following conditions:-
(i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence
during the trial.
(ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the
prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on
each and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a
specific order of Court.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to
the offence of which, she is an accused, or for
commission of which she is suspected of.
(v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coerce,
induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted
with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her
from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any
police officer or tamper with the evidence in any
manner.
(vi) The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse his
liberty.
(vii) The petitioner shall furnish her address and mobile
number by way of an affidavit to the trial Court and
not change the same till conclusion of trial and if for
any reasons, she seeks to change either of the
aforesaid, it shall be done only with prior information
to the learned trial Court.
(viii) The petitioner shall not leave the country without prior
permission of the trial Court.
(ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other
condition, as deemed appropriate while releasing the
petitioner.
3 of 4
CRM-1273-2026 in/&
9. It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of the
aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as
granted to the petitioner by this order.
10. In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made
herein above are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would not
be construed as any opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would
proceed independently of the aforesaid observations.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
15.01.2026
M.Kamra
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
4 of 4
