Allowed

Monika v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Sept 2026CRM-M/50255/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the second bail petition filed by Monika under Section 483 of the BNSS. Noting that the petitioner had been in custody for over a year in a serious criminal case involving rape allegations and blackmail, and that the investigation was complete with only three witnesses examined, the Court held that keeping her in custody served no useful purpose and ordered her release on ba

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.

Monika Vs State of Haryana — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

206 CRM-M-50255-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 11.09.2026

Monika …Petitioner

V/s

State of Haryana

…Respondent

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL

¶8

Present: Mr. HPS Chopra, Advocate, for the petitioner. (through video conference)

¶9

Ms. Vasundhara Dalal Anand, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

¶10

¶11

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)

¶12

This is the second petition preferred under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNSS’) praying for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.218, dated 18.06.2025 registered at Police Station Thanesar City, District Kurukshetra, under Sections 308(2), 308(6) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNS’), the first having been withdrawn on 12.09.2025.

¶13

Custody certificate dated 10.09.2026 filed in Court today is taken

¶14

on record.

¶15

FIR No.19, dated 10.06.2025 was registered at the instance of the petitioner under Sections 3(5), 351(2) and 64(1) BNS against one Mohan Lal and Baljit Singh with the allegations of rape. Subsequently, the present FIR was registered on a complaint submitted by Mohan Lal with the allegations that the petitioner along with her husband had been blackmailing him and was demanding Rs.25 lakhs in the rape case. It was also alleged that the petitioner had honey trapped the complainant by entering into a consensual relationship with him and had thereafter, started blackmailing him along with VIKAS CHANDER 2026.09.11 17:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

CRM-M-50255-2026 (O&M) -2-

¶17

her husband Neeraj. Upon the complaint of the complainant and after registration of the FIR, a raid was conducted and the petitioner along with her husband were apprehended while counting currency notes of Rs.5 lakhs. Accordingly, the petitioner and her husband were arrested and are in custody since then.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. He submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last 1 year, 2 months and 22 days, she having been arrested on 18.06.2025. He further submits that the antecedents of the petitioner are clean. Learned counsel submits that the investigation stands completed; final report stands submitted; charges have been framed but out of 11 witnesses, only 3 have been examined, including the complainant; trial will take a sufficiently long time and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer.

¶19

Per contra , learned State counsel has opposed the bail application, stating that the allegations against the petitioner are very serious.

¶20

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

¶21

No doubt, the allegations are serious. However, the petitioner is in custody for the last 1 year, 2 months and 22 days, she having been arrested on 18.06.2025. The antecedents of the petitioner are clean. Investigation stands completed. After framing of charges, only 3 out of 11 witnesses have been examined. The trial will definitely take a sufficiently long time and in the considered opinion of this Court, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer.

¶22

In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, without

¶23

VIKAS CHANDER 2026.09.11 17:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

CRM-M-50255-2026 (O&M) -3-

¶25

expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.

¶26

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶27

(VIKRAM AGGARWAL) JUDGE

¶28

September 11, 2026 vcgarg Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶29

VIKAS CHANDER 2026.09.11 17:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Monika v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Monika v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases