IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Geetika Dhingra ....Petitioner V/s State of Haryana and another ....Respondents Date of decision: 20.04.2026 Date of Uploading: 20.04.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Gaurav Datta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana.

Mr. Kushagra Beniwal, Advocate for respondent No.2.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 in FIR No.101 dated 15.02.2025 registered for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 of IPC and Section 10 & 24 of Immigration Act at Police Station Sadar Thanesar, Kurukshetra.

2. The gravamen of the allegations, as borne out from the FIR lodged by the complainant Kuldeep Singh, who alleged that being unemployed and desirous of going abroad, he contacted accused Nitin Balecha (husband of the petitioner) through a mobile number obtained online. Upon inquiry, the accused Nitin Balecha (husband of the petitioner) alongwith his father Kawal Nain represented that they, alongwith the present petitioner Geetika, were running a company namely N.G. Infotech and could facilitate sending persons to America by enrolling them in their company for a consideration of Rs.21.00 lacs per persons. The complainant alongwith 5/6 other persons agreed to the proposal and allegedly paid a total sum of Rs.49,63,000/- into the bank accounts of accused persons including the petitioner. It has been alleged that despite receipt of huge amounts, the accused persons neither arranged visas nor returned the money & had cheated the complainant and others. On these set of allegations, instant FIR has been registered and investigation ensued.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is a housewife and has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question solely on account of certain bank transactions. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has been living separately from her husband for more than two years and has no concern with the alleged business activity. It has been further contended that the complainant himself is involved in similar offences and has lodged the present FIR with mala fide intention to shift liability. According to learned counsel, the amounts credited in the account of the petitioner have been used by her husband for routine expenses and a substantial portion has already been returned. Learned counsel has emphasized that the petitioner has neither induced the complainant nor has any direct dealings with him. Learned counsel has further contended that the petitioner is not engaged in the business of sending the persons abroad and the allegations are general and vague in nature. Learned counsel has further asserted that the dispute, if any, is purely civil in nature arising out of a money transaction and has been given a criminal colour. It has been further argued that the petitioner has clean antecedents and is willing to fully cooperate with the investigation. Moreover, there is no likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or tampering with the prosecution evidence in case he is enlarged on pre-arrest bail. On strength of these submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the petitioner has been specifically named in the FIR and has played an active role in cheating the complainant. Learned State counsel has iterated that the substantial amounts have been credited into the bank account of the petitioner as part of the fraudulent scheme. It has been further submitted that the investigation is at a nascent stage and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to unearth the entire conspiracy, trace the money trial and effect recovery. Learned State counsel has emphasized that the evidence collected