Teena Yadav vs. State Of Hp

Held

The Court allowed the bail petition, directing the release of the petitioner, Teena Yadav, on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Learned Trial Court. The Court reasoned that while the allegations were serious, the petitioner had been in custody for over a year and four months. The Court noted that the investigation was complete, challans had been presented, and the trial had commenced with only 3 out of 20 witnesses examined. The Court found that the petitioner's continued incarceration, at this stage, could be violative of Article 21. It also observed that the ingredients of Section 66-D of the IT Act, regarding the use of a communication device, were matters to be tested during the trial. The apprehension that the petitioner might misuse her liberty could not be pre-judged. The Court imposed stringent conditions to safeguard the interests of the State and the victim, including reporting to the Investigating Officer, not tampering with evidence, not inducing witnesses, and disclosing functional email IDs/WhatsApp numbers. The Court clarified that its observations were not indicative of findings for or against the parties for the purpose of investigation or trial.

Facts

The petitioner, Teena Yadav, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sahinta (BNSS) after being in custody since January 22, 2025. The case originated from FIR No. 5 of 2024, registered on January 23, 2024, under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, at Police Station Cyber Cell, Mandi. Subsequently, Sections 419 and 201 IPC read with Section 120B IPC were added. The petitioner claimed innocence, false implication, and stated that investigation was complete with nothing to be recovered. She highlighted that co-accused had been granted bail, she had no prior criminal antecedents, and her continued incarceration violated Article 21 of the Constitution. Previous bail applications had been dismissed by the Sessions Judge and Judicial Magistrate. The State's status report detailed a complaint by Avinder Pal Singh, who was allegedly duped of Rs. 85,000 by the petitioner, introduced as 'Miss Sandhya Sharma from RBI Office', in a scheme involving GST and payments to other officers. The petitioner's husband and brother-in-law were allegedly involved in dividing the remitted funds.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in light of the allegations of cheating and cyber fraud, the stage of investigation and trial, and the principles governing bail under Section 483 BNSS and Article 21 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that a false case was registered against her, she was innocent and falsely implicated, and there was no evidence connecting her to the alleged offense. She contended that the investigation was complete, nothing was to be recovered, and co-accused had been granted bail. She emphasized her lack of criminal antecedents and the prolonged incarceration violating her fundamental rights. She also pointed out that only 3 out of 20 prosecution witnesses had been examined, indicating a slow trial. Respondent's (State) Arguments: The State opposed the bail application, citing the seriousness of the alleged offenses involving cheating and cyber fraud. They argued that there was a prima facie case against the petitioner, and if released, she might influence witnesses or indulge in similar offenses. The Status Report indicated that the complainant identified the petitioner as 'Ms. Sandhya Sharma' who called him regarding the refund of an insurance policy and subsequently duped him of Rs. 85,000 in the name of GST and other officers. The State also noted that the charge had been framed and the trial had commenced.