CRM-M-65587- IN THE H (123) BALVIR KAUR STATE OF PUNJ CORAM: HON Present: Mr. V Mr. Mr. R MANISHA BATR 1. The under Section 48 “BNSS”) for gran 08.07.2024 registe Nyaya Sanhita, 20 Police Station Ma No.6530-2025 title by this Court vide 2. The p offences on the al -2025 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH
AUR Versus
PUNJAB HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS Mr. Vinod Ghai, Senior Advocate wit Arnav Ghai, Advocate for the pet Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab ****
BATRA, J. (ORAL)
The instant one is the second petitio on 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Surak r grant of regular bail in case aris registered under Sections 103, 3(5), ita, 2023 (for short BNS) (Section 3 on Maur, District Bathinda. Her prev 25 titled as Balbir Kaur Versus State rt vide order dated 12.05.2025. The petitioner is facing trial for comm the allegations that on 07.07.2024, th JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH CRM-M-65587-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 16.03.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondent ANISHA BATRA
ate with the petitioner Punjab petition preferred by the petitioner Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short e arising out of FIR No.78 dated , 3(5), 61(2) and 304 of Bharatiya tion 304 of BNS added later on) at r previous petition bearing CRM-M State of Punjab, had been dismissed r commission of the aforementioned 024, the co-accused Harpreet Singh, M) 2026 oner
dent
ioner short ated atiya n) at M issed oned ingh, AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.17 19:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-65587- Jaspreet Singh an complainant by h having motive to way back in the ye 3. It is a the dismissal of he progressed any fur far. It is explicit t She has been imp registered for mur no evidence to sh She is in custody purpose would be by her in custody incarceration milit of the Constituti appearance as a w trial. She has clea released on bail. 4. Per co a successive/secon petition of the peti -2025 (O&M) 2 gh and Gurdeep Singh had killed t by hatching a conspiracy with the ive to do so, as her son was murdere the year 2020. It is argued by learned Senior couns l of her previous petition, more than 1 any further as till date, no prosecution plicit that chances of conclusion there n implicated by the complainant as r murder of her son. She was admitte to show that she had hatched any co stody for a period of more than 01 ye uld be served by detaining her in cust ustody is a sufficient reason to seek n militates against her fundamental rig stitution of India. The complaina as a witness before the Trial Court w as clean antecedents. It is, therefore, Per contra, learned State counsel has /second petition for grant of bail is no he petitioner was dismissed by passing killed Jaspal Singh, brother of the th the present petitioner, who was urdered by the victim Jaspal Singh, counsel for the petitioner that after than 10 months back the trial has not cution witness has been examined so thereof in the near future are bleak. nt as a counterblast to the FIR got dmittedly not the assailant. There is any conspiracy with the co-accused. 01 year and 08 months. No useful n custody anymore. Each day spent o seek bail afresh. Her prolonged l right guaranteed under Article 21 plainant is intentionally avoiding ourt with an intention to prolong the efore, argued that she deserves to be el has argued that the petition being il is not maintainable. The previous passing a detailed order. There is no f the was , r s not ed so leak. got re is used. seful spent nged le 21 iding g the to be eing ious is no AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.17 19:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-65587- substantive or dras the petition does n 5. This C for the parties at co 6. So fa second petition fo accused has a righ the duty of the Co consider that any the one taken in th be noted that ever action for filing a alleged to have h thereof, the co-acc injuries on his per by the petitioner w spot, when the pet period of 01 year future are bleak a cannot be kept in considered even i condition that the is no recovery a antecedents. On a -2025 (O&M) 3 or drastic change in the circumstances does not deserve to be allowed. This Court has heard the rival submis at considerable length. So far as the question of maintain tion for grant of bail is concerned, i a right to move successive bail applic the Court, while entertaining such a s t any fresh ground which persuade it n in the earlier application is made ou t every day spent by an accused in cu ling a bail application under certain ci have hatched a conspiracy with the accused, had killed the victim by a his person. There is no direct eviden ioner with the co-accused. Admitted the petitioner was assailed. The petiti year and 08 months. The chances of leak as no prosecution witness has b ept in custody for indefinite period a even if it is filed repeatedly. The at the prosecution must press for early ery at the instance of the petitione On analyzing the peculiar facts and tances. It is, therefore, stressed that ubmissions made by learned counsel aintainability of this petition being rned, it may be mentioned that, an application for grant of bail and it is ch a subsequent bail application, to ade it to take a view different from ade out or not? It is also required to in custody provides a new cause of tain circumstances. The petitioner is h the co-accused and in pursuance m by assailing him and causing fatal evidence of hatching any conspiracy mittedly, she was not present at the petitioner has been in custody for a ces of conclusion of trial in the near has been examined so far. She riod and the bail application can be The denial of bail comes with a r early completion of the trial. There titioner. The petitioner has clean cts and circumstances of the present that unsel eing t, an it is n, to from ed to se of is ance fatal iracy t the for a near She n be ith a here clean esent AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.17 19:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-65587- case in the light o consideration the should not be a rep is an exception, th for grant of bail allowed and the furnishing persona Court/Chief Judici 7. In th conditions, the re seeking cancellatio 8. It is, be construed as an and shall not influ 9. Since any, is rendered in 16.03.2026 Amit Sharma -2025 (O&M) 4 light of the aforementioned principles n the well settled proposition of la e a replica of post-conviction sentenc tion, this Court is of the considered f bail to the petitioner at this stage. d the petitioner is ordered to be rel ersonal as well as surety bonds to the Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate c In the eventuality of breach of the respondent-State shall be at lib cellation of the bail. It is, however, clarified that the obse d as an expression of opinion of this C t influence the outcome of the trial in a Since the main petition has been al ered infructuous. (MA Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes
  
ciples of law and further taking into of law that pre-trial incarceration entencing and bail is the rule and jail ered opinion that a case is made out stage. Accordingly, the petition is be released on bail subject to her to the satisfaction of the learned trial trate concerned. h of any of the aforementioned at liberty to move an application e observations made above shall not this Court on the merits of the case ial in any manner.
allowed pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE
Yes/No
into ation d jail e out n is her trial oned ation l not case n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.17 19:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.