Mewa Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. B.S. Jatana, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. Hemant Aggarwal, DAG, Punjab --- SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

#1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioners, in case bearing FIR No.8 dated 30.01.2026, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 108 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’), at Police Station Joga, District Mansa.

#2. The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioners is that the complainant, namely, Pardeep Singh son of Gurmeet Singh, stated that his younger brother, namely, Chanchal Singh had solemnized love marriage with Sarabjeet Kaur daughter of Mewa Singh, resident of Village Bakhshiwala, District Sangrur. Since the marriage, Chanchal Singh had been residing with his sister, namely, Sandeep Kaur at Village CRM-M No.27398 of 2026 -2- Kharak Singh Wala. The complainant further stated that about 10–12 days prior to the incident, Sarabjeet Kaur was taken to her parental home by her maternal uncle and aunt. As she did not return thereafter, on

29.01.2026, Chanchal Singh, accompanied by his mother-Shinder Kaur, (wife of Gurmeet Singh), went to Village Bakhshiwala to bring her back. In the evening, Chanchal Singh returned alone to the house of his sister at Village Kharak Singh Wala, whereas his mother returned to their native village, Sanghera. The complainant also stated that he had visited his sister's house on the same day. Upon his return from the parental house of his wife, Chanchal Singh disclosed that Sarabjeet Kaur had refused to accompany him. He further stated that Sarabjeet Kaur, her father Mewa Singh, her mother Rani Kaur, and her brother Lovy Singh had insulted and humiliated him and his mother, and had categorically refused to send Sarabjeet Kaur with him. Chanchal Singh further expressed that he was so distressed by their conduct that he was contemplating ending his life. Since that day, he remained under severe mental stress and depression. The complainant further stated that on 30.01.2026, at about 10:00 a.m., Chanchal Singh left the house. When he did not return, the family members searched for him. Subsequently, they found that he had committed suicide by hanging himself from a girder in a room of the house. The complainant alleged that Chanchal Singh was driven to commit suicide due to the harassment, humiliation, and conduct of his wife, Sarabjeet Kaur, daughter of Mewa Singh, his father-in-law, Mewa Singh, his mother-in-law, Rani Kaur, and his brother-in-law, Lovy Singh, CRM-M No.27398 of 2026 -3- who, according to the complainant, had subjected him to mental cruelty and humiliation.

#3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners are in custody since 31.01.2026. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioners have been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has iterated that main accused, namely, Sarabjit Kaur, wife of the deceased, has been afforded the concession of regular bail by this Court, vide order dated 05.05.2026 passed in CRM-M-19577-

#2026. Learned counsel has urged that from the factual milieu of the case in hand, offence under Section 108 of the BNS (erstwhile Section 306 of IPC) is not made out. Another accused namely Manpreet Singh @ Lovy Singh @ Navu has also been afforded the concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 3.7.2026 passed in CRM-M No.31242 of

#2026. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel relies upon the dicta of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohit Singhal & Anr. Vs. The CRM-M-State of Uttarkhand & Ors., 2024 (1) SCC 417 and Abhinav Mohan Delkar Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others, 2025 AIR SC 3823. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

#4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus, the petitioners does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificates dated

20.07.2026 and 21.7.2026, in this Court today, which are taken on record. CRM-M No.27398 of 2026 -4-

#5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

#6. The petitioners were arrested on 31.1.2026 whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan has been presented on 1.4.2026. It is conceded case before this Court that total 17 prosecution witnesses have been cited, but none has been examined till date. The conclusion of the trial, indubitably, will take its own time. The rival contention raised at Bar; including as to whether offence under Section 108 of the BNS (erstwhile Section 306 of the IPC) is made out or not; shall essentially be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.

6.1. As per custody certificates dated 20.7.2026 and 21.7.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioners no.1 and 2 have already suffered incarceration for a period of 5 months and 19 days and 5 months and 20 days respectively & are not shown to be involved in any other FIR(s). Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioners as undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.

#7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioners are ordered to be released on regular bail on their furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CRM-M No.27398 of 2026 -5- CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioners shall remain bound by the following conditions:- (i) The petitioners shall not mis-use the liberty granted. (ii) The petitioners shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial. (iii) The petitioners shall not absent themselves on any date before the trial. (iv) The petitioners shall not commit any offence while on bail. (v) The petitioners shall deposit their passport, if any, with the trial Court. (vi) The petitioners shall give their cell-phone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change their cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. (vii) The petitioners shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.

#8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

#10. Ordered accordingly. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE

21.7.2026 Ashwanii Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No