IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 215 1) CRM-M-16020-2026 Decided on : 08.07.2026 Harjinder Kaur alias Raj . . . Petitioner(s) Versus State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s) 2) CRM-M-10788-2026 Pal Singh . . . Petitioner(s) Versus State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Ms. Sukriti Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner(s) (in CRM-M-16020-2026). Mr. Saurabh Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner(s) (in CRM-M-10788-2026). Mr. Manjinder S. Bhullar, DAG, Punjab. **** SANJAY VASHISTH , J. (Oral) 1. This order shall dispose of CRM-M-16020-2026 & CRM-M- 10788-2026, as both the petitions are interconnected and have arisen out of same FIR. However, the lead case is CRM-M-16020-2026. 2. The instant petitions have been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the petitioners, during the pendency of trial, who have been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed here-under:- Name of Petitioner(s) FIR No. Date Section(s) Police Station District Harjinder Kaur alias Raj (petitioner in CRM-M-16020- 2026 151 15.09.2024 S. 103, 190, 61(2), 238 of BNS, 2023 (erstwhile S. 302, 149, 120- B, 201 of IPC) Lehra Sangrur JAWALA RAM 2026.07.10 15:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M-16020-2026 CRM-M-10788-2026 - 2 - Pal Singh (petitioner in CRM-M-10788- 2026) 151 15.09.2024 S. 103, 190, 61(2), 238 of BNS, 2023 (erstwhile S. 302, 149, 120- B, 201 of IPC) Lehra Sangrur 3. FIR in the instant case was registered at the instance of complainant – Major Singh, who is brother of deceased in the present case, namely, Bhura Singh. Allegations, which have been levelled in the FIR by him are against total six accused namely – (i) Sinder Kaur w/o Bhura Singh i.e. deceased (ii) Tarsem Singh son of Bhura Singh, (iii) Beant Kaur w/o Tarsem Singh (iv) Harjinder Kaur @ Raj Kaur (petitioner herein) D/o Bhura Singh, (v) Palo Kaur (mother-in-law of Tarsem Singh) and (vi) Pal Singh (petitioner herein) (father-in-law of Tarsem Singh). During investigation, one of the accused – Sinder Kaur expired, while inside jail. The version got registered by the complainant-Major Singh, reads as under: - “He stated that I am a resident of the aforementioned address and engaged in agriculture. We were three brothers and one sister. My sister Pritam Kaur and brother Nazar Singh have already passed away. All of us brothers being married are living in our respective homes with our families. My brother Bhura Singh, around 55-56 years old, had two children, an elder daughter Harjinder Kaur alias Raj and a younger son Tarsem Singh alias Semi. Both of them are married, My brother Bhura Singh often had disputes with his family. Though a settlement was reached between them some time ago, conflicts persisted. A few days ago, there was another minor quarrel in his household. On that day, my brother Bhura Singh told me he feared that his own family, along with his son Tarsem Singh's in-laws, might conspire to kill him. Since that day, my brother Bhura Singh had been missing from home. We had been searching for him on our own. Later, we learned that an unidentified body with tied hands JAWALA RAM 2026.07.10 15:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M-16020-2026 CRM-M-10788-2026 - 3 - and feet was found in the Tohana canal, on which Tohana Police registered a case and took action. We also went to Tohana to search for my brother Bhura Singh. At the Civil Hospital, Tohana, we identified the dead body kept by the police as that of my brother Bhura Singh. The body bore injury marks consistent with a beating. Now I am fully convinced that Singh Semi, his daughter Harjinder Kaur alias Raj, his wife Sinder Kaur, his my brother Bhura Singh was murdered by his son Tarsem Singh alias Harjinder daughter-in-law Beant Kaur, all residents of Bhuttal Kalan, District Sangrur, in collusion with Tarsem Singh's mother-in-law Palo Kaur and father-in-law Pal Singh, residents of Haryana, District Patiala. They beat him with deadly weapons with the intention to kill, tied his hands and feet, put his body into a vehicle to misappropriate, and dumped it into the Bhakra Canal, due to rise in water level only body floated above and recovered at Tohana by moving from Bhakra Canal. Regarding which, I along with my son Baghel Singh were coming to Police Station Lehra to inform but I met you and the police party at T-point Chottiya. There, I got recorded my statement, which I read thoroughly and confirmed to be true and correct. I request you to take appropriate legal action against all the persons mentioned in the statement. L.T.I aforesaid Major Singh (deponent), statement verified by Sd/- Baghel Singh, son of Major Singh resident of Bhuttal Kalan.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) argues that at first instance, one dead body of an unknown person was recovered form the Bhakhra Canal at Tohana, and thereupon one FIR No. 504 dated 11.09.2024 under Sections 103(1) and 238(a) of BNS was registered at Police Station City Tohana against one unknown person. On 11.09.2024, the complainant-Major Singh (before registration of the impugned FIR) reached out to the Police Station City Tohana and thereupon identified the dead body recovered by the police JAWALA RAM 2026.07.10 15:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M-16020-2026 CRM-M-10788-2026 - 4 - of Police Station City Tohana (District Fatehabad). Thereupon, complainant returned to his home, however, FIR in question i.e. FIR No. 151 was registered in the area at Police Station Lehra, District Sangrur, on 15.09.2024 i.e. after a period of four days of identifying the dead body. He further argues that just to deprive every one of the left over properties by deceased- Bhura Singh, each and every member of his family has been made accused by the complainant- Major Singh, being related as his brother. The kind of allegations do not even make out a case on prima facie basis that for killing elder family member, every one in the family will join hands together to commit such like offence and then to throw away the dead body. Further argues that in the present case, there is no direct evidence and it is based upon the circumstantial evidence only, more so, prosecution relies upon the disclosure statements and recovery of one car, which shown to have been recovered at the instance of accused/petitioner – Pal Singh (father-in-law of Tarsem Singh). After completion of investigation, challan has been submitted on 14.12.2024 with a list of 24 prosecution witnesses and despite 11 chances given to the witnesses, they chose not to appear and to make the required statement before the Court. 5. Learned counsel submits that as they all are inside jail for a sufficiently long time, i.e., for a period of more than one year and 09 months and until charges are proved beyond reasonable doubt, their longer incarceration will not served any meaningful purpose,. Thus, prays for grant of bail. Besides, similarly situated co-accused, namely, (i) Tarsem Singh alias Somi (in CRM-M-68151-2025), (ii) Beant Kaur (in CRM-M-67071- JAWALA RAM 2026.07.10 15:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M-16020-2026 CRM-M-10788-2026 - 5 - 2025), and (iii) Raj Kaur alias Pal Kaur alias Palo Kaur (in CRM-M-31732- 2025), have already been granted concession of regular bail vide common order dated 09.02.2026 (Annexure P-3). Thus, claiming parity also, learned counsel seeks concession of regular bail to the present petitioners also. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the separate custody certificates dated 07.07.2026, in Court today, which are taken on record. Office to tag the same at appropriate place. A copy thereof has been handed over to the counsel for the petitioner. 7. Learned State counsel while opposing prayer for bail submits that all the petitioners have committed murder of Bhura Singh, after causing injury to him and said fact has been accepted by them in their disclosure statements during the course of their custody. Although, he does not deny the contention of not effecting recovery of any weapon from the accused persons, except of one hammer, which was lying recovered from the house of deceased, thus, prays for dismissal of the present bail petition. However, all other factual assertions or the arguments addressed here-above, have not been disputed by learned State counsel. 8. I have considered the submissions addressed by learned counsel for the parties. 9. Undoubtedly, case depends upon the circumstantial evidence, therefore, it will be heavily upon the prosecution to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt by creating the chain of the events, which have been alleged by the prosecution in its final report. Petitioners – Harjinder Kaur @ Raj and Pal Singh, are inside jail for a period of about more than 01 year and JAWALA RAM 2026.07.10 15:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M-16020-2026 CRM-M-10788-2026 - 6 - 09 months. It is also noticed that the charges were framed about a year back i.e. on 13.02.2025. Materially none of the prosecution witness could get recorded the statement, despite granting 11 effective opportunities. Whether all the petitioners herein have been involved by the complainant, with motivated purpose to deprive the succession in the property or the doubt erupting through the FIR is true one, would be subject matter before the trial Court at its final adjudication. The fact can not be ignored that the FIR was registered after fourth day of his returning back from Tohana and before that no such allegation was raised by the complainant even before the Tohana Police, when first time he saw the dead body. Besides, it is also noticeable that other similarly situated co- accused of the petitioners have also been granted concession of regular bail vide common order dated 09.02.2026 (Annexure P-3) by this Court. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and without commenting upon the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners deserve the concession of regular bail. Consequently, prayer made in the present petitions are allowed. Petitioners are ordered to be released on bail, subject to their furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case. 11. Needless to observe that the petitioners shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly. 12. The observation made here-in-above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case and the Trial Court is expected JAWALA RAM 2026.07.10 15:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M-16020-2026 CRM-M-10788-2026 - 7 - to decide the case on the basis of complete evidence available on record. 12. Petitions stand disposed of. Pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected case. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE July 08, 2026 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No JAWALA RAM 2026.07.10 15:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document