202 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-64710-2024 Date of Decision: 11.02.2025 RISHIKA .....Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present : Mr. Balraj Gujjar, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Rajesh Gaur, Addl.A.G., Haryana KULDEEP TIWARI , J.(Oral)

1. Through the instant petition, the petitioner craves for indulgence of this Court for his being enlarged on 'regular bail', in case FIR No. 263, dated 22.04.2024, under Sections 323, 365, 379-B, 506 of IPC, 1860 and under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, (Sections 120-B, 364-A, 452 and 201 IPC added later on), registered at Police Station Adarsh Nagar, Distirct Faridabad.

2. This is the third petition, seeking the similar relief of regular bail, the last one was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 21.10.2024 (Annexure P-4). The instant petition, has been filed on the ground that after the withdrawal of the earlier bail application, there is no progress in the trial.

3. The case of the prosecution was set up on the statement made by one Sunita Meena wife of Satish Meena. The relevant extract of the same reads as under:-

“....I am Sunita Meena wife Satish Meena resident of house no. 2487, Sector 62, Ballabhgarh, Faridabad. My husband works in ICICI Bank CGO COMPLEX Delhi, three storey. My in- laws live house our on the first floor and I along with my children live on the second floor and tenants live on the third floor. That on 21/22.2024 at around 12:30 Α.Μ., my husband and his friend Amit Yadav resident of Govind Puri Delhi, had reached our house on a sccoty from Raja Nahar Singh metro station. My husband and his friend were sitting on the sofa on first floor after washing their hands and mouth because my in-laws had gone to their village. At the same time, a boy entered their room through the stairs and he pointed the pistol at my husband and my husband's friend and snatched their phones and also snatched the money from my husband's pocket and then he took out a hammer from the bag in his hand and attacked my husband's friend on the head due to which he bled profusely and became unconscious. That the person pointed the pistol at me and said that if I raise any noise, he will kill me and my husband, that I got scared and did not make any noise, after that the person asked my husband to bring the keys of the car and my husband stood at the gate of my floor and asked me for the keys, which I silently gave the keys due to fear, which then the boy on the strength of GUN POINT PISTOL, kidnapped my husband and took him away in his car number DL 3GD 9913 MAHENDRA SUV. When my husband's friend Amit regained consciousness, we informed the police about this incident...”

4. A perusal of the FIR (supra), it reflects that one person namely Bhupender, who is husband of the present petitioner, committed the above acts. What surfaced during the investigation that the petitioner is one of the co-conspirators as she gave concurrence on mobile to her husband to commit such criminal act.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in his asking for the relief (supra), submits that the petitioner is a lady, who has been implicated only on account of being wife of the main accused. At the best, there is only mobile call detail records, with the prosecution agency to establish the role/participation of the present petitioner, which is in fact a weak evidence, as having all such interactions on mobile phone with her husband is a daily routine.

6. He further submits that the petitioner has suffered incarceration of more than 9 months as on today.

7. He also submits that the conclusion of the trial would take a long time, as till date out of the total 19 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined.

8. Per contra, the learned State counsel, has vociferously opposed the asked for relief to the present petitioner, and submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender, as she is involved in one other criminal case. He further submi