218 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.32927 of 2026 Date of Decision:-08.07.2026 Babita …..Petitioner. Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL ***** Present:- Mr. Shokeen Singh Verma, Advocate and Mrs. Neha Nehra, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Vasundhara Dalal Anand, Sr. DAG, Haryana. VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL) Prayer in the present petition preferred under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short the ‘BNSS’) is for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.255 dated 15.09.2025 registered under Sections 103(1), 238(c) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short the ‘BNS’), at Police Station Badli, District Jhajjar. 2. Reply by way of affidavit of Sh. Pardeep Kumar, HPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Badli, District Jhajjar, and custody certificate filed by learned State counsel in Court, are taken on record. 3. On a complaint submitted by one Rahul, the FIR in question was registered. As per the allegations, on 08.09.2025, the mother of the complainant namely Sudesh had gone to their plot to take care of the YAG DUTT 2026.07.08 18:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CRM-M No.32927 of 2026 -2- buffaloes. She was found dead at that spot. Her eyes were bulging out and mouth was found to be open. Upon receipt of the information, the family members started coming. Complainant’s cousin’s daughters-in-law Babita (the petitioner) and Sweety also came to the spot. Both Babita and Sweety started saying that Sudesh had expired on account of a heart-attack and that there was no requirement of any post-mortem. Thereafter, they did not allow anyone to take photographs of his mother’s dead body and last rites were performed. On 11.09.2025, when the complainant and his brother along with their father were checking the CCTV cameras in the house adjacent to their plot, they saw Babita coming and going to the plot and was appearing to be nervous. The gate of the house of Sweety was also opened and closed twice. Both were seen going to the plot as well. It was, therefore, stated that both had strangled their mother on account of resentment towards their family. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. He submits that PW1 Rahul, who is the complainant and son of the deceased, PW3 Prem Singh, husband of the deceased and PW4 Kavita, daughter-in-law of the deceased, have not supported the case of the prosecution. He further submits that co-accused Sweety has been granted regular bail by a coordinate Bench vide order dated 12.05.2026 passed in CRM-M No.12985 of 2026. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is in custody since 16.09.2025; more than 9 months have elapsed; trial will still take a sufficiently long time and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer. YAG DUTT 2026.07.08 18:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CRM-M No.32927 of 2026 -3- 5. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the bail application stating that the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 7. No doubt, the allegations are serious. However, it has to be borne in mind that PW1 Rahul, who is the complainant and son of the deceased, PW3 Prem Singh, husband of the deceased and PW4 Kavita, daughter-in-law of the deceased, have not supported the case of the prosecution. The petitioner was arrested on 16.09.2025 and is in custody since then. Co-accused Sweety has been granted regular bail by a coordinate Bench vide order dated 12.05.2026 passed in CRM-M No.12985 of 2026. Trial will still take a sufficiently long time and in the considered opinion of this Court, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer. 8. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on her furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate. (VIKRAM AGGARWAL) July 08, 2026 JUDGE Yag Dutt Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No YAG DUTT 2026.07.08 18:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.