CRM-M-32884-2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (205) CRM-M-32884-2025 Date of decision: - 25.06.2025 Rajpreet Kaur @ Rani Kaur ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present:- Mr. Bikramjeet Singh Jatana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Surya Kumar, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Amardeep Singh Mann, Advocate for the complainant. (Through VC) **** VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL) 1. This is a first petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.34 dated 09.03.2025, under Sections 333, 307, 74, 191(3), 190, 115(2) of the BNS, 2023 (Section 238 of the BNS, 2023 has been added later on), registered at Police Station City 2 Mansa, District Mansa. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner, who is a lady, is in custody since 09.03.2025 and the investigation in the present case has been completed and the challan has already been presented and there are as many as 15 prosecution witnesses, NARESH KUMAR 2025.06.25 18:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgement CRM-M-32884-2025 -2- none of whom have been examined, thus, the trial is likely to take time and also there is no other case against the present petitioner. It is further submitted that the present petitioner is the sister-in-law of the complainant and the house in question was owned by mother of the petitioner, namely, Gurdev Kaur, who had transferred the same on 04.08.2023 in favour of Akashdeep Singh (grandson of Gurdev Kaur). It is further submitted that the said Akashdeep Singh is also residing in the house in question and thus, the question of taking forcible possession of the house in question does not arise. It is argued that the said Akashdeep Singh had filed a suit for permanent injunction and vide order dated 20.06.2024, an injunction to the effect that the complainant was restrained from dispossessing the said Akashdeep Singh from the suit property was granted and thereafter since the matter was settled, the said suit was withdrawn. It is submitted that the petitioner has only been implicated only on account of the fact that she is related to Akashdeep Singh. 3. Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the complainant have submitted that it is the complainant who is possession of the property and the accused party had tried to take forcible possession on two occasions and on an earlier occasion a compromise had been effected but in the present incident they have managed to enter into the house in question and had also taken Rs.20,000/- from the drawer of the bed and had committed the offences as stated in the FIR. 4. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paper book. NARESH KUMAR 2025.06.25 18:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgement CRM-M-32884-2025 -3- 5. Keeping in view the above-said facts and circumstances, more so, the fact that the petitioner has been in custody since 09.03.2025 and the challan in the present case has already been presented and there are as many as 15 prosecution witnesses, none of whom have been examined and thus, the trial is likely to take time and also the fact that the petitioner is not involved in any criminal case and is a lady and the arguments raised on behalf of the petitioner raises debatable issues, which would be finally adjudicated during the course of trial, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on her furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/ Duty Magistrate, subject to her not being required in any other case. 6. However, it is made clear that in case, any act is done by the petitioner to threaten or influence the complainant or any of the witnesses, then it would be open to the State to move an application for cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner. 7. Nothing stated above shall be construed as a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of the observations made in the present case which are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail petition. ( VIKAS BAHL ) June 25, 2025 JUDGE naresh.k Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No NARESH KUMAR 2025.06.25 18:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgement