Poonam Kumari vs. State Of Haryana

Facts

The petitioner, Poonam Kumari, invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, seeking anticipatory bail. The FIR was registered on 24.02.2025, under various sections of the BNS, 2023. The petitioner claimed innocence, alleging false implication with the motive of extorting money. She stated she joined the company as a receptionist on 05.03.2024, with limited duties. She further alleged that the company owner, Mr. Ajay Aggarwal, pressured her for personal tasks, attempted to coerce her into a sexual relationship, and threatened her reputation. A dispute regarding alleged GST evasion arose on 01.01.2025, during which the petitioner intervened and was allegedly threatened by Mr. Aggarwal. The petitioner contended that the FIR allegations were false, frivolous, and motivated, and that no recovery was to be made from her, thus custodial interrogation was unnecessary. She undertook to cooperate with the investigation.

Held

The Court held that the FIR appeared to be lodged with an ulterior motive, stemming from a personal dispute and internal company conflict. The petitioner, working solely as a receptionist, had no role in the alleged offenses, and no recovery was to be made from her. The circumstances indicated the complaint was a counterblast to the petitioner's resistance to illegal and unethical conduct by the company owner, including coercion and threats. Therefore, custodial interrogation would serve no useful purpose and would only result in unnecessary harassment. The Court noted the petitioner's undertaking to join the investigation and abide by any conditions. Consequently, the petitioner was directed to be released on anticipatory bail, subject to joining the investigation within one week and furnishing personal/surety bonds. The Court also stipulated conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, including availability for interrogation, not inducing witnesses, and not leaving India without permission. The order was made subject to the condition that if the petitioner failed to comply with the direction to join the investigation within a week, the anticipatory bail order would stand automatically cancelled.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, considering the allegations of false implication and lack of incriminating material against her? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that she is innocent and has been falsely implicated with the ulterior motive of extorting money. She claimed no connection to the alleged offenses and detailed her role as a receptionist. She further alleged coercion and threats from the company owner, Mr. Ajay Aggarwal, following her resistance to his advances and her intervention in a GST evasion dispute. She contended that the FIR was a motivated counterblast and that custodial interrogation was not warranted as no recovery was to be made. She offered to cooperate with the investigation. Respondent's arguments: The State/complainant, through learned counsel, prayed for the dismissal of the petition, stating that the petitioner, along with co-accused, cheated the complainant. However, the State counsel could not present any incriminating material connecting the petitioner with the alleged commission of the offense.