Ranjan Sharma, Judge

Bail petitioner [Teena Yadav], being in custody since 22.01.2025, has come up before this Court, seeking regular bail, under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sahinta, [referred to as ‘BNSS’], originating from FIR No.5 of 2024, dated 23.01.2024, under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code and Section 66-D of Information and Technology Act, registered at Police Station, Cyber Cell, Central Zone, Mandi, District Mandi [H.P.], with subsequently added Sections 419, 201 read with Section 120B IPC.¹Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

FACTUAL MATRIX IN BAIL PETITION:

2. Case set up by Learned Counsel is that a false case has been registered against the bail petitioner, in which, she was arrested on 22.01.2025. It is averred that the petitioner is innocent and she has been falsely implicated and there is no evidence to connect her with alleged offence. It is averred that there is no likelihood of bail petitioner absconding or jumping over the bail and she undertakes to appear in the trial, as and when required to do so. Petitioner has given an undertaking that she shall not cause any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the case and shall not dissuade prosecution witnesses in any manner. It is averred that petitioner is ready and willing to furnish bail bonds and surety bonds as may be directed by this Court. It is in this backdrop, the instant petition has been filed with the prayer for releasing the petitioner on bail. It is averred that investigation is complete and nothing is to be recovered from her. It is averred that 20-PWs were sought to be examined by the prosecution in support of their case, but as on day only 03-PWs have been examined. It is averred that other co-accused, Deepka and Shashank Rastogi have been enlarged on bail and the petitioner has no past criminal antecedents. It is averred that petitioner is facing incarceration for more than one year and four months and the prolongation of incarceration merely by presuming the guilt at this stage is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is averred that the petitioner moved applications for bail i.e. Bail Application No.84 of 2025 before Learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, which was dismissed on 14.05.2025 [Annexure P-2] followed by another Bail Application No. 104 of 2025 before Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.2, Mandi, which was dismissed on 18.08.2025 [Annexure P-3]. It is further averred that the petitioner moved the third bail application vide Bail Application No.116 of 2025 before Learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, which met the fate of dismissal on 08.09.2025 [Annexure P-4] and this is the fourth bail application, moved by the petitioner.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS COURT:

3. In the instant bail application, notice was issued by this Court on 31.03.2026 directing the State Authorities to file the Status Report.

3(i) Pursuant to orders dated 31.03.2026, the State Authorities have filed the Status Report dated 02.04.2026 and copy of the same was supplied to Learned Counsel for the petitioner, who prayed for time to go through the Status Report and make submissions. However, on joint request of Learned Counsel on 30.04.2026 the matter was deferred for 08.05.2026.

STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES IN STATUS REPORT:

4. Status Report dated 02.04.2026 reveals the factual matrix, indicating that one Shri Avinder Pal Singh had submitted a complaint to police that in the year 1998 he had taken an Insurance Policy, from Exide Life Insurance and due to losses suffered in business, he could not continue with these policies and did not receive back the entire deposited amount. It is averred that in the year 2010, the complainant made a request to Insurance Ombudsman for refund of deposited amount but in vain. It is averred that in the year 2022 the complainant received a call from 7428037253, who introduced as Miss Sandhya Sharma from RBI Office and said that he will receive the