Veronika @ Divyanshi Kanwar Vs State of Punjab

The petitioner has filed the 4th petition under Section 483 of BNSS with a prayer to grant regular bail to her in case FIR No.0011 dated 08.08.2023, registered under Sections 120-B, 199, 200, 211, 384, 420 of IPC, (Sections 388, 389, 465, 467, 468, 471 IPC) Police Station State Crime Police Station, SAS Nagar, District Mohali.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the earlier bail application of the petitioner was withdrawn on 20.11.2024 and now, she is in custody for the last more than one year and 03 months. Since there has been no substantial progress in the trial, the petitioner has moved the present petition before this Court. He further contends that in the present case, the prosecution

¶18

VIPIN KUMAR 2025.07.07 13:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this judgment/order

¶19

CRM-M-12136-2025

¶20

-2-

¶21

had alleged that Kashish Uppal @ Sofia Uppal was in the habit of getting the false cases registered, in connivance with Rohit Sehgal, Advocate and no specific allegation has been levelled against the petitioner. He further contends that in the present case surprisingly Rohit Sehgal, Advocate was not challaned by the police and the petitioner has been falsely involved in the present case. He further contends that the petitioner was arrested in the present case on 13.03.2024 and is in custody for the last more than 01 year and 03 months. After completion of investigation, the challan was presented before the trial Court on 29.05.2024.. He further contends that the prosecution has been able to examine only 02 witnesses out of total 33 witnesses and the trial is not likely to conclude in near future.

¶22

On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that serious allegations have been levelled against the present petitioner and she does not deserve the concession of bail by this Court.

¶23

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

¶24

In the present case, the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 01 year and 03 months and all the offences are triable by the Court of Magistrate. Even the prosecution has been able to examine only two witnesses so far and the trial is not likely to conclude in near future. Thus, the further custody of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose.

¶25