1 CRM-M-34138-2026 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 209 CRM-M-34138-2026 (O&M) Reserved on: 08.07.2026 Pronounced on: 10.07.2026 Uploaded on: 10.07.2026 KANTA DEVI PETITIONER VERSUS U.T. OF CHANDIGARH RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Argued by: Mr. Arjun Dosanj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manish Bansal, P.P., U.T. Chandigarh with Mr. Alankrit Bhardwaj, Addl. P.P., U.T. Chandigarh. Ms. Kanwal S. Walia, Advocate and Ms. Komal Bishnoi, Advocate for the complainant. *** Shalini Singh Nagpal, J. 1. Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No.30 dated 05.03.2026 under Sections 103(1), 115(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 351(3) and 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (B.N.S.), 2023, Police Station Sector-39, Chandigarh. This is the first petition for anticipatory bail. 2. Complainant Ravi Kumar alleged that House No.682/1, Sector 38-A, Chandigarh was in the name of his grandfather, Sant Ram. His sister Tina w/o Naveen, her son Krishna, his other brother-in-law Ravi and his sons Gagan, Raj and Aniket were forcibly occupying the house for the last 22 years. They had a criminal background. After death of his sister Reena, he asked Ravi, Naveen, Tina and all their children to vacate the house but they had been frequently intimidating and threatening them and refused to vacate the house. On 05.03.2026 at 03:00-03:30 P.M., when complainant along with his daughter Taniya (age 21 years), younger daughter Khushi (age 16 years), his nephew Manav (age 16 years) went to reason with them, they were already HARPREET SINGH CHAUHAN 2026.07.10 20:40 I agree to specified portions of this document 2 CRM-M-34138-2026 (O&M) prepared to quarrel with them. As soon as they arrived, they abused and picked up a fight. In a fit of rage, Krishna took a large knife and stabbed his daughter Taniya on left side of her back, causing her to fall on the ground. In the meantime, Gagan took a hoe (kassi) and attacked him and his nephew Manav. They all suffered injuries. His brothers-in-law Ravi and Naveen along with Tina, Raj, Gagan, Krishna and Aniket were repeatedly inciting each other proclaiming that they should be killed so that the game of vacating the house ends. Raj, Gagan and Aniket pelted stones at his Swift Dzire car bearing No.CH01-BQ-7750 and broke it. Seeing people collected at the spot, they fled. He took Taniya, Khushi and his nephew Manav to GMSH-16, Chandigarh for treatment where Taniya was declared brought dead. He further alleged that his sister Tina, her husband Naveen, their son Krishna, his brother-in-law Ravi and his three sons Raj, Gagan, Aniket and Ravi’s mother Kanta, who was also present at the spot was instigating others to kill them. Everybody conspired together and murdered his daughter Taniya and caused them injuries. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had been falsely implicated. She was mother of co-accused Ravi, resident of New Delhi and was visiting the house of co-accused on day of occurrence. No overt or covert role was attributed to her. The allegations were against co-accused and she was named in the end alleging that she instigated co-accused to commit the crime. The attribution was incorrect as it was complainant’s own case that co-accused Krishna inflicted knife blow to his daughter, in a fit of rage. Moreover, it was complainant and his family members who visited the house of co-accused. Thus, the allegations of conspiracy and premeditation to kill were not substantiated. Petitioner was 71 years old and had no idea that complainant and his family members would be visiting the house of co- HARPREET SINGH CHAUHAN 2026.07.10 20:40 I agree to specified portions of this document 3 CRM-M-34138-2026 (O&M) accused. She was named in the FIR on afterthought. The CCTV footage of the incident would show that she had no role in the offence. She was neither carrying any weapon nor was part of any conspiracy or unlawful assembly. The weapon of offence had already been recovered and no recovery was to be effected from the petitioner. It is prayed that petitioner be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 4. Status report by way of affidavit of Mr. Dhiraj Kumar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, SDPO South-West, UT Chandigarh on behalf of respondent No.1-State has been filed. Ms. Kanwal S. Walia, Advocate appears on behalf of respondent No.2 and files her vakalatnama. The same is made part of the record. Learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel for respondent No.2, opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail on the ground that petitioner was principal conspirator in heinous case of murder and had been absconding since the date of registration of FIR, frustrating the investigation. She was evading the police despite multiple raids conducted at her known locations. In case of release on pre-arrest bail, she would use her liberty to influence prosecution witnesses, tamper with evidence and threaten the complainant party. Her custodial interrogation was required to unearth the absolute conspiracy and exact sequence of events. She had also been harbouring co-accused Gagan who too was absconding from the process of law. Entire family of the accused were involved in multiple criminal cases. Petitioner herself indulged in boot-legging. In view of the allegations against her, it was not a fit case to enlarge her on anticipatory bail. 5. Petitioner is 71 years of age, mother of co-accused-Ravi. It is claimed that she was resident of New Delhi, who was visiting her son on the day of incident. No weapon has been attributed to her nor she is alleged to have inflicted any injury to the deceased or any other person. Only role is that HARPREET SINGH CHAUHAN 2026.07.10 20:40 I agree to specified portions of this document 4 CRM-M-34138-2026 (O&M) she instigated others to kill. Given the age of the petitioner and her antecedents, which are clean besides the fact that no recovery is to be effected from her possession, the petition for anticipatory bail is allowed. Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating/Arresting Officer and join investigation within one week or as and when required. In the event of her arrest, the Investigating/Arresting Officer shall release the petitioner on anticipatory bail on his furnishing personal/surety bonds to his/her satisfaction. The petitioner shall also abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. 6. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) JUDGE 10.07.2026 HS.CHAUHAN Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No HARPREET SINGH CHAUHAN 2026.07.10 20:40 I agree to specified portions of this document