The High Court
Case Details
IN THE THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH PUNJAB & HARYANA 205 Paramjit Kaur State of Punjab CRM-M-9187 Date of decision: 9187-2025(O&M) decision: 04.11.2025 ...Petitioner VERSUS ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. Mr. Imran Singh Khara, Advocate, for the petitioner. Punjab. Mr. Mohit Kapoor, Sr.DAG, Punjab. Mr. Mr. Mr. P.S. Jammu, Mr. R.P.S. Jammu Mr. Gaurav Luhani, Advocates, for Mr. ***** Jammu and the respondent-complainant. VINOD S. BHARDWAJ BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)
Legal Reasoning
The instant first petition has been filed The filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in in case bearing FIR No.77 dated 10.09.2023 registered under Sections 302, 307, 307, 323, 120B, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Balianwali, Balianwali, District Bathinda, Punjab. Punjab. 2. Briefly summarized, the case of Briefly the prosecution is that the present FIR was was registered on the statement of of complainant Jarman Singh, who alleged that that his maternal uncle (Masser) Gurmeet Gurmeet Singh had purchased land measuring 4 acres situated in Village Mandi Mandi Khurd several years ago, and the complainant complainant would occasionally accompany accompany him to inspect the said land. A few days days prior to the incident, the complainant, complainant, along with his Masser Gurmeet Gurmeet Singh and maternal aunt (Massi) (Massi) Paramjit Kaur, had visited the fields when when Jaswinder Singh, his son Jagmohan Jagmohan Singh, and Jaswinder Singh‘s brother- -in-law arrived at the spot. They They claimed ownership over 2 SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.11.06 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 205 CRM-M-9187-2025(O&M) CRM 2 acres of the said said land and threatened the complainant complainant‘s uncle with dire consequences if if he did not vacate the same, further further warning them not to visit the land in future. future. On the date of occurrence, the complainant along with Gurmeet Singh, Singh, Paramjit Kaur, another Massi Massi Kuljit Kaur, and Princepal Singh (a friend of Gurmeet Singh) had again gone to the fields. At about 12:40 p.m., a Bolero Bolero jeep and three motorcycles motorcycles arrived, carrying several armed persons. Six to seven assailants alighted alighted from the vehicles, armed with handles of of hand-pumps, gandasies, rods, rods, and kirpans, and began assaulting Paramjit Paramjit Kaur and Kuljit Kaur. Jaswinder Jaswinder Singh was armed with a rod, his son Jagmohan Jagmohan Singh carried a kirpan, and and his brother-in-law wielded a hand-pump handle; handle; they inflicted injuries on on the complainant party with their respective weapons, causing grievous injuries injuries to Gurmeet Singh with an intention to to kill him. Upon hearing the commotion, Nirmal Singh, Balwant Singh, and Balkar Singh arrived at the spot, whereupon the accused fled the scene along along with their weapons. 3.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel appearing on behalf Learned behalf of the petitioner contends that as per the allegations set forth in the FIR, FIR, the petitioner was neither present at the scene scene of occurrence nor did she participate participate in the commission of any alleged offence. offence. It is submitted that the only only reason cited for seeking her custodial detention detention is that her husband and nd son, who are the principal accused, have not yet been apprehended by by the Investigating Agency. Learned counsel counsel further draws the attention of of this Court to paragraph No. 20 of the reply reply filed by the Investigating Agency, Agency, wherein it has been categorically admitted admitted that the petitioner had joined the investigation on SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.11.06 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 205 CRM-M-9187-2025(O&M) CRM 3 29.05.2025 and and was accompanied by one Pala Pala Singh, Ex-Sarpanch of Village Kotra Kaurha. Kaurha. It is stated that the Investigating Investigating Officer released her after obtaining surety bonds but subsequently alleged non-cooperation on her part. Learned Learned counsel submits that the respondents respondents have failed to specify the nature or extent extent of the cooperation now required required from the petitioner. It is further contended contended that the petitioner has been been on interim bail since 19.05.2025 and has not misused the concession in in any manner whatsoever. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf Learned behalf of the respondent-State relies upon the aforesaid aforesaid averments and contends contends that the petitioner has not cooperated with with the investigation. However, upon upon a specific query being put to the learned State State counsel as to the nature of cooperation cooperation required from the petitioner and whether whether any recovery remains to to be effected from her, the learned State counsel counsel was unable to point out any any material or indicate that any such recovery petitioner. recovery is pending against the petitioner. 5. I, thus thus, find that the averment that that the petitioner has not co- operated with the the investigation is without any tangible tangible basis. 6. Counsel for the respondent-complainant Counsel complainant contends that the other co-accused have have so far not been arrested, hence, hence, the concession of pre-arrest bail ought not be be extended to the petitioner. 7. I am am afraid such an argument cannot cannot be accepted as the proceedings before before the Court of Law are not not intended to serve as an instrument of settling settling vengeance. Participation Participation of a person in a criminal offence is required required to be established alongwith alongwith the necessity of continued detention. In the the absence of such circumstances, circumstances, a suspect would not be SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.11.06 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 205 CRM-M-9187-2025(O&M) CRM 4 denuded of their their liberties solely on account of the the inability or inaction of the police in apprehending apprehending the other co-accused. 8. Resultantly, the present petition is allowed Resultantly, allowed and the interim order dated 19.05.2025 19.05.2025 is made absolute. 9. However, if required, the petitioner(s) However, petitioner(s) shall continue to join investigation as and when required to do so and and shall abide by the terms and conditions, as laid laid down under Section 482 (2) BNSS. BNSS. 4. Pending application(s), if any, shall also Pending
Decision
also stand disposed of. 04.11.2025 Sumit Gusain (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) (VINOD JUDGE speaking/reasoned Whether speaking/reasoned reportable Whether reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.11.06 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document