CRM-M-19807- IN THE H REETA SAINI A STATE OF PUNJ 1 The dat 2 The dat 3 The dat website 4 Whethe pronoun pronoun 5 The del judgme CORAM: HON Present: Mr. Mr. R Mr. R **** MANISHA BATR 1. The 483 of Bharatiya of regular bail in under Sections 30 “BNS”) (Sections Taragarh, District -2026 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH INI ALIAS RITA SAINI Versus PUNJAB he date when the judgment is reserved he date when the judgment is pronoun he date when the judgment is uploaded ebsite hether only operative part of the judg ronounced or whether the full judgmen ronounced he delay, if any, of the pronouncement dgment and reasons thereof. HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS Ritesh Pandey, Advocate for the Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab Mr. Rohit Sharma, Advocate for the c **** BATRA, J. The instant petition has been filed atiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in case arising out of FIR No.000 ons 308(4), 351(3) of Bharatiya Ny ctions 111 and 61(2) of BNS adde istrict Pathankot. JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH CRM-M-19807-2026 (O&M) ... Petitioner ...Respondent served 11.05.2026 onounced 12.05.2026 loaded on the 12.05.2026 e judgment is dgment is Full cement of full Not applicable ANISHA BATRA or the petitioner Punjab r the complainant by the petitioner under Section , 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant 0007 dated 17.01.2026 registered ya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short added later on) at Police Station oner dent ction grant tered short ation AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.12 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-19807- 2. The a got recorded by th that on the same d mobile number fro knew details of all from him and exte killed. 3. After During the course statement on 18.03 had come to know who was currently the petitioner and petitioner by him Village temple by with them on that petitioner were no as such subsequen qua her now stand 4. It is a falsely implicated by the complaina considered to be t -2026 (O&M) 2 The aforementioned FIR was registe by the complainant Rajesh Kumar o same day at about 03:26 PM, he rece ber from an unknown person and the s of all his family members, raised dem d extended threat that if the said amou After registration of FIR, investigatio course of investigation, the complaina n 18.03.2026, alleging that he had mad o know that Lakhwinder Singh @ La rrently residing in Kuwait, had made r and had extended threats. The moti y him was that she had been removed ple by the Panchayat about one year n that account. The above-named La ere nominated as accused. Some othe sequently. The petitioner was arrested stands concluded. It is argued by learned counsel for th icated in this case on the basis of supp plainant more than 02 months after to be trustworthy as a possibility of th registered on the basis of statement mar on 17.01.2026, alleging therein e received a WhatsApp call from a nd the caller while showing that he ed demand of amount of Rs.20 lakhs amount was not given, he would be stigation proceedings were initiated. plainant recorded his supplementary ad made inquiry at his own level and @ Lakha, nephew of the petitioner made a call to him at the behest of e motive which was attributed to the moved from the Presidentship of the e year back and was having enmity ed Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakha and e other persons were also nominated rrested on 18.03.2026. Investigation l for the petitioner that she has been of supplementary statement recorded after the incident which cannot be y of the same having been made by ment erein om a at he lakhs ld be ated. ntary l and ioner st of o the f the mity and ated ion been rded t be e by AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.12 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-19807- making due delibe too had motive to collected to show Sarpanch of the V brother of the com said Satish Kumar The offence under effected from her purpose would be stressed that she d allowed. 5. Per co complainant has v the allegations as extended benefit o dismissed. 6. This C for the parties at co 7. The p in pursuance of t who is nephew of money from the c the basis of thorou -2026 (O&M) 3 deliberations and concoctions cannot tive to implicate her falsely in this show her complicity in the crime. In f the Village had lodged an FIR aga e complainant had been forcing her to Kumar and on her not doing so, she h under Section 111 of BNS has been d m her. She is not required for furt uld be served by detaining her in cust t she deserves to be released on bail a Per contra, learned State counsel assi t has vehemently argued that taking in ons as levelled against the petitioner nefit of bail. It is, therefore, urged t This Court has heard the rival submis es at considerable length. The petitioner is alleged to have conn e of that conspiracy, the co-accused ew of the petitioner, is alleged to ha the complainant and to have extende thorough assessment of the evidence t annot be ruled out. The complainant n this case. No material has been e. In fact, her mother, who was Ex- IR against one Satish Kumar. The her to make a statement in favour of , she has been involved in this case. been deleted. No recovery has been or further investigation. No useful in custody anymore. It is, therefore, bail and the petition deserves to be el assisted by learned counsel for the ing into consideration the gravity of itioner, she does not deserve to be rged that the petition is liable to be ubmissions made by learned counsel e connived with the co-accused and cused Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakha to have made demand of extortion xtended threats to him. It is only on ence to be produced during trial that inant been - The ur of case. been seful fore, to be r the ty of o be to be unsel and akha rtion ly on l that AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.12 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-19807- any conclusion as subject offences c been concluded. would not serve a settled proposition incarceration shou the jail is to secu preventive or pun opinion that a cas Accordingly, the p on bail subject t satisfaction of the concerned. 8. It is, be construed as an and shall not influ 9. Since any, is rendered in 12.05.2026 Amit Sharma -2026 (O&M) 4 ion as to the involvement of the pe nces can be drawn. The investigatio ded. She is in custody since 18.03.2 serve any fruitful purpose. Her ante osition of law is that bail is the rule an n should not be replica of post-convict o secure appearance of the accused r punitive. In view of the above d t a case is made out for grant of bail , the petition is allowed and the petiti ct to her furnishing personal as of the learned trial Court/Chief Judici 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 all ered infructuous. (MAN Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes Whether reportable:- Yes/No the petitioner in commission of the tigation qua the petitioner has since 8.03.2026. Her continued detention er antecedents are clean. The well ule and jail is an exception. Pre-trial onviction sentencing. The object of cused during trial, and it cannot be ove discussion, this Court is of the f bail to the petitioner at this stage. e petitioner is ordered to be released al as well as surety bonds to the Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate 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 f the since ntion ell trial ct of t be f the tage. ased the trate l not case n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.12 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.