Reena vs State Of Punjab

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J. (Oral)

The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 92 dated 15.05.2026, registered under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 306 IPC), at Police Station Rangar Nangal, Police District Batala.

As per the prosecution, deceased Nirmaljit Singh, who was serving in the Army and had come home on leave, was found hanging from the ceiling fan at his residence on 14.04.2026 while his family members were away at Gurdwara Sri Hazur Sahib, Nanded. Initially, proceedings under Section 194 BNSS were initiated and the post-mortem was conducted on 17.04.2026. On 15.05.2026, the complainant Baljinder Kaur, wife of the deceased, made a statement alleging that during his lifetime, her husband had told her that the petitioner Reena, with whom he was allegedly having an online/telephonic relationship, had taken money from him and was demanding further money, including a demand of Rs.12 lakh, and was allegedly blackmailing and harassing him. She further alleged that Rs.50,000 had been transferred to the petitioner on 29.03.2026 and that due to such harassment the deceased became distressed and committed suicide. On the basis of the said statement, FIR No.92 dated 15.05.2026 under Section 108 BNS was registered against the petitioner. The prosecution relies upon the statement of the complainant, the material collected during investigation and the circumstances allegedly showing harassment and abetment of suicide by the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested on 16.05.2026.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been in custody since 16.05.2026 and has no criminal antecedents. The FIR was registered almost a month after the death of the deceased, whereas immediately thereafter proceedings under Section 194 BNSS were initiated and, at that stage, the family members had expressed no suspicion against any person. It is submitted that the subsequent allegations of abetment are primarily based upon the alleged disclosure made by the deceased to the complainant during his lifetime and are not supported by any suicide note or direct evidence attributing any overt act of abetment to the petitioner.

Learned counsel further submits that the post-mortem examination revealed a ligature mark consistent with hanging and no other injury, abrasion, contusion or sign of struggle was found on the person of the deceased. It is also submitted that the petitioner had herself lodged a complaint against the deceased shortly before the occurrence, alleging that she had been deceived and exploited by him on the promise of marriage, which circumstance, according to learned counsel, assumes relevance while appreciating the allegations levelled against the petitioner.

It is further contended that the investigation already stands completed, the final report/challan has been presented and the petitioner is no longer required for any custodial interrogation or recovery. The petitioner has already undergone a substantial period of incarceration and the trial is likely to take considerable time.

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 16.09.2026 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 03 months and 28 days.

Learned State counsel, while opposing the present petition, submits that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. As per the prosecution, the deceased had disclosed to his wife that the petitioner was harassing and blackmailing him for money and had demanded a substantial amount from him. It is further submitted that an amount of ₹50,000/- was transferred by the deceased to the petitioner shortly before his death and that the petitioner’s conduct had caused mental distress to the deceased, which ultimately led him to take the extreme step of ending his life. Learned State counsel further submits that the statement of the complainant and other material collected during investigation prima facie connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. The earlier bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Sessions Court on 04.08.2026.

Be that as it may, the petitioner has been in custody since 16.05.2026. The FIR came to be registered nearly one month after the death of the deceased, whereas initially proceedings under Section 194 BNSS were conducted and no suspicion was expressed against the petitioner at that stage. The prosecution case is primarily based upon the statement of the complainant regarding the alleged disclosure made to her by the deceased during his lifetime. The post-mortem report records a ligature mark consistent with hanging and does not indicate any other injury or sign of struggle. The petitioner had also lodged a complaint against the deceased shortly prior to his death, which aspect would be a matter for consideration during trial. Investigation already stands completed and the challan has been presented. The petitioner is not stated to be required for any further custodial interrogation. Considering the period of custody already undergone and the fact that the trial is likely to take considerable time, further incarceration of the petitioner is not warranted at this stage.

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.

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 he is in possession of a passport, he 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 his 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 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 his personal appearance is exempted in accordance with law. He shall not absent himself from the proceedings without obtaining prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event of any violation of the aforesaid conditions or his 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.