AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J. (Oral)
The present petition is the first petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 Cr.P.C.), seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 08 dated 12.01.2026, initially registered under Section 105 of the BNS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 304 IPC), and subsequently amended with the addition of Sections 103(1) and 61(2) of the BNS, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 302 and 120-B IPC), registered at Police Station Kabarwala, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, Punjab (Annexure P-1)
As per the prosecution case, FIR No. 08 dated 12.01.2026 was initially registered under Section 105 of the BNS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 304 IPC), in connection with the death of Simranjeet Kaur and her minor daughter, who allegedly drowned in a canal near Village Alamwala. During investigation, the offence was altered and Sections 103(1) and 61(2) of the BNS, 2023, corresponding to Sections 302 and 120-B IPC, were added. The prosecution case is primarily based upon the allegations against Sahil Kheda, husband of deceased Simranjeet Kaur, who allegedly drove the vehicle carrying his wife and daughter into the canal, resulting in their death, while he himself managed to come out safely. During investigation, Sahil Kheda allegedly made a statement before the police on 07.02.2026, wherein he attributed a role to the present petitioner by alleging that she had instigated him to commit the murder of his wife and daughter. The prosecution further relies upon the statements of the complainant Barjinder Singh, father of deceased Simranjeet Kaur, and Tejinder Singh, who stated that a Panchayat had been convened about two months prior to the occurrence to resolve the matrimonial dispute between Sahil Kheda and his wife. The prosecution also relies upon the investigation conducted pursuant to the said statements and the material collected during investigation. As regards the present petitioner, the prosecution alleges that she was known to Sahil Kheda and that she had a relationship with him. It is alleged that she instigated Sahil Kheda against his wife, thereby facilitating the commission of the alleged offence. The petitioner was subsequently arrested and the challan has been presented before the learned Trial Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the petitioner was initially employed as A/BPM in the Department of Posts and was posted at Village Jandwala Bhimeshah, where she came in contact with co-accused Sahil Kheda. However, upon coming to know that Sahil Kheda was already married, the petitioner distanced herself from him and even got herself transferred to Village Chimnewala in order to sever her association with him. It is further submitted that the name of the petitioner did not figure in the initial statement/complaint of Barjinder Singh dated 12.01.2026, nor was any role attributed to her in the subsequent statement wherein Sahil Kheda was specifically named as the main accused. Learned counsel submits that even though Tejinder Singh, in his statement dated 13.01.2026, allegedly stated that he had informed Barjinder Singh about the petitioner during the Panchayat, the petitioner was still not implicated at that stage, which clearly indicates that there was no material available against her.
Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has been implicated subsequently only on the basis of the alleged statement of co-accused Sahil Kheda recorded while he was in police custody. Except the said statement, there is no independent or corroborative material connecting the petitioner with the murder of Simranjeet Kaur and her daughter. It is contended that the alleged statement of a co-accused, by itself, cannot constitute sufficient material to deny the petitioner the concession of regular bail, particularly when the petitioner has consistently disputed the allegations.
It is also submitted that there is a serious discrepancy regarding the date, time and place of arrest of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, she was taken into custody from her place of posting at Village Chimnewala on 07.02.2026 at about 11:20 a.m., whereas the prosecution has shown her arrest on 08.02.2026 from a different place. Learned counsel submits that the affidavits of the concerned witnesses and the call recording/transcript placed on record prima facie support the petitioner's version regarding her earlier custody.
Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has clean antecedents, is a permanent resident of India, was employed in the Department of Posts and has no reason or occasion to flee from justice or influence the prosecution witnesses. The investigation has already been completed and the challan has been presented before the learned Trial Court. The petitioner is no longer required for custodial interrogation and the trial is likely to take considerable time. On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the petitioner may be enlarged on regular bail.
Notice of motion.
Ms. Navreet Kaur, AAG, Punjab, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and has filed the custody certificate dated 26.08.2026, which is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner has already undergone a total custody period of 06 months and 18 days.
Learned State counsel, while opposing the prayer for grant of regular bail, submits that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature, as the present case pertains to the double murder of Simranjeet Kaur and her daughter. It is further submitted that, in view of the gravity and seriousness of the offences alleged, a detailed status report is necessary to ascertain the exact role attributed to the petitioner and the material collected by the investigating agency.
Be that as it may, considering the rival submissions and the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the petitioner has been in custody since 08.02.2026 and the investigation has already been completed, with the challan having been presented before the learned Trial Court. The allegations undoubtedly relate to the death of Simranjeet Kaur and her daughter and are serious in nature; however, the gravity of the offence, by itself, cannot be the sole ground to deny the concession of regular bail when the material available on record is otherwise considered. It is noticed that the name of the petitioner did not figure in the initial statement of complainant Barjinder Singh dated 12.01.2026, nor was any specific role attributed to her therein. Further, although Tejinder Singh, in his statement dated 13.01.2026, is stated to have informed the complainant about the petitioner during the Panchayat convened to resolve the matrimonial dispute between Sahil Kheda and his wife, the petitioner was not implicated at that stage. The petitioner has also placed on record material suggesting that, after coming to know about the marital status of Sahil Kheda, she had distanced herself from him and got herself transferred from Village Jandwala Bhimeshah to Village Chimnewala. The role attributed to the petitioner primarily emanates from the statement of co-accused Sahil Kheda dated 07.02.2026, wherein he allegedly stated that the petitioner had instigated him. At this stage, there is no need to express any final opinion regarding the evidentiary value of the said statement, which would be a matter for consideration by the learned Trial Court during trial. The petitioner is no longer required for custodial interrogation. She is stated to be having clean antecedents and there is no material placed on record to suggest that she is likely to abscond or tamper with the prosecution evidence. The trial is likely to take considerable time to reach its logical conclusion. Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances, without commenting upon the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that further incarceration of the petitioner would not serve any useful purpose.
Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, 2018 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein it has been held that grant of bail is the rule and refusal thereof is an exception, and that a person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. It is further submitted that the right to speedy trial forms an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the same has been consistently recognised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, including in Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Another (SLO (Crl.) No. 8523/2024). In these circumstances, continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose, particularly when the trial can be effectively safeguarded by imposing appropriate conditions.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted on regular bail, subject to furnishing requisite bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, as the case may be, and further subject to the following conditions:-
The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Court or to the investigating agency.
2 The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever, nor shall attempt, directly or indirectly, to influence, intimidate, or contact any prosecution witness.
The petitioner shall not leave the territorial limits of India without obtaining the prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event she is in possession of a passport, she shall furnish its particulars before the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court.
The learned Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, before accepting the bail and surety bonds, shall obtain from the petitioner her permanent residential address as well as present correspondence address, duly supported by appropriate documentary proof. The Investigating Officer shall verify the correctness of the said addresses within 48 hours from the acceptance of the bail bonds and shall place a verification report on the record. In the event either of the addresses is found to be false, fictitious, or incorrect, it shall be open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of the concession of bail in accordance with law.
The petitioner shall furnish before the learned Trial Court, either at the time of furnishing the bail bonds or within such period as may be specified by the Court, Permanent Account Number (PAN), Aadhaar Number, particulars of all operative bank accounts, and a declaration disclosing details of immovable properties, if any. Any concealment of material particulars or furnishing of false information shall constitute a valid ground for seeking cancellation of bail in accordance with law.
The petitioner shall intimate the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court, in writing, of any change in her residential address or mobile number within seven days from the date of such change.
The petitioner shall not commit any offence of a similar nature during the pendency of the trial and shall remain present before the learned Trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless her personal appearance is exempted in accordance with law. She shall not absent herself from the proceedings without obtaining prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event of any violation of the aforesaid conditions or her unauthorized absence from the trial proceedings, it shall be open to the learned Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law, including cancellation of the concession of regular bail and issuance of appropriate coercive process, including warrants of arrest.