is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 08.06.2024, registered at Police Station Rureke Kalan, District Barnala, under Sections 2. a 6-year-old daughter, is in custody alleges false implication. being wife of co her to the a Ranjeet Ghuana been framed on 19.10.2024, examined but there are still other case. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 BNSS is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 08.06.2024, registered at Police Station Rureke Kalan, District Barnala, under Sections 302, 34(201, 380, 411 IPC). Learned counsel contends that the old daughter, is in custody for 1 year and about 10 months. alleges false implication. She has been implicated only on account of being wife of co-accused, Jaswant Singh. There is no evidence connecting her to the alleged offence, apart from the statement one witness, namely Ranjeet Ghuana. No weapon has been recovered from her. been framed on 19.10.2024, 2 PWs, including the complainant, stand examined but there are still 33 more to go. filed under Section 483 BNSS is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.46 dated 08.06.2024, registered at Police Station Rureke Kalan, District Barnala, Learned counsel contends that the petitioner, a lady, who has 1 year and about 10 months. He She has been implicated only on account of accused, Jaswant Singh. There is no evidence connecting lleged offence, apart from the statement one witness, namely . No weapon has been recovered from her. Charges have , including the complainant, stand more to go. She is not involved in any PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.03.30 19:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 3. The custody certificate dated 29.03.2026, filed by the learned State counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for 1 year, 9 months and 14 days. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that there are specific allegations against the petitioner that she alongwith her husband committed the offence in question. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage of the case and the petitioner being not involved in any other case. 5. Heard. 6. harges stand framed on 19.10.2024, however, 2 PWs including the complainant, have been examined, out of 35; 7. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case and shall abide by the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses. PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.03.30 19:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. (iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific order of Court. (iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which, she is an accused, or for commission of which she is suspected of. (v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coerce, induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner. (vi) The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse her liberty. (vii) The petitioner shall furnish her address and mobile number by way of an affidavit to the trial Court and not change the same till conclusion of trial and if for any reasons, she seeks to change either of the aforesaid, it shall be done only with prior information to the learned trial Court. (viii) The petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial Court. (ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other condition, as deemed appropriate while releasing the petitioner. 8. It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as granted to the petitioner by this order. 9. In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein above are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would not be construed as any opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of the aforesaid observations. PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.03.30 19:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.