CRM-M No.25045 of 2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 229 CRM-M No.25045 of 2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 13.07.2026 Manisha ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present: Mr. Vishvajeet Singh Rishi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab. SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J . (Oral) : The learned State counsel has filed custody certificate of the petitioner. The learned State counsel has filed reply to the petition. The same, too, be taken on record, ₹ but subject to payment of 5,000/- as cost. The cost be deposited in the account No.45115269583 of Punjab and Haryana High Court Dispensary Welfare Fund. 2. This petition for bail is the second petition, filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.140 dated 29.09.2021, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 302 [Sections 34 and 201 were added later on], Police Station Daba, District Ludhiana. 3. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of ‘Bechan’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the above named complainant that his elder brother ‘Ram Lagan’, hereinafter MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.14 09:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.25045 of 2026 (O&M) 2 being referred to as ‘deceased’ only, was married to the petitioner in the year 2000 and out of this wed-lock three children were born out. According to complainant due to extra-marital relationship of the petitioner with ‘Ramesh’, a marital discord occurred between the deceased and the petitioner. It was further stated by the complainant that on 22.09.2021 he was called by the petitioner, who informed him that the dead body of his brother was lying in the fields near the canal. The complainant had alleged that petitioner along with her paramour had killed his brother ‘Ram Lagan’. 4. It is the case of the prosecution that in view of abovementioned statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. 5 Notice of motion. 6. Heard. 7. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of more than four years and nine months, and the trial is taking place at a slow pace as out of 20 prosecution witnesses only thirteen have been examined, so far. According to learned counsel for the petitioner fundamental right of speedy trial guaranteed to the petitioner is being violated with impunity in the present case, and therefore, she is entitled to the benefit of bail. 8. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that in the present case the weapon of offence has been recovered from co-accused ‘Ramesh’, and that the co-accused has already been accorded the benefit of bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. It has also been conteded that nothing has to be recovered from the possession of petitioner and MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.14 09:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.25045 of 2026 (O&M) 3 that detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any purpose. 9. The learned State counsel has controverted the above mentioned arguments. According to learned State counsel there are very specific and categorical allegations against the petitioner, and that the complainant who appeared before the trial Court and got himself examined as PW-1, has specifically named the petitioner as the person who was responsible for the murder of his brother. It has also been contended that in view of the direct link between the commission of offence and the petitioner, and also the gravity of offence, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of bail. 10. The record has been perused carefully. 11. A perusal of the record shows that following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a decision in the present petition:- i) that the petitioner is in custody for a period of more than four years and nine months; ii) that the petitioner being a lady deserves a considerate view; iii) that the petitioner has clean antecedents; iv) that the complainant who had implicated the co-accused Ramesh and Barfat Ansari, has not supported the prosecution case qua their involvement in the commission of offence. In fact, he has been declared hostile; v) that the trial is taking place at a slow pace as out of 20 prosecution witness only thirteen have been examined so far; vi) that the benefit of bail has already been accorded to co- MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.14 09:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.25045 of 2026 (O&M) 4 accused; vii) that the investigation in this case is already complete, and therefore, nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner; viii) that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future; ix) that detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any purpose; x) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; xi) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not co-operate/participate in the trial. 12. 12. In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another’, (2018) 3 SCC 22, are relevant, wherein it has been observed that “a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.14 09:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.25045 of 2026 (O&M) 5 jurisprudence or to our society. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case”. 13. The principles laid down by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation’ (2022) 10 SCC 51 are also relevant in this case. In the abovementioned case, it has been observed that “the rate of conviction in criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor weighs on the mind of the Court while deciding the bail applications in a negative sense. Courts tend to think that the possibility of a conviction being nearer to rarity, bail applications will have to be decided strictly, contrary to legal principles. We cannot mix up consideration of a bail application, which is not punitive in nature with that of a possible adjudication by way of trial. On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a case of grave injustice”. 14. Recently, in the case of ‘Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of Chhattisgarh’, 2025 SCC Online SC 322, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that “if an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed”. It has also been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.14 09:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.25045 of 2026 (O&M) 6 India in the abovementioned case that “delays are bad for the accused and extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and for the credibility of our justice system, which is valued. Judges are the masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed efficiently”. 15. To elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to an undertrial prisoner, as mandated by Hon’ble Apex court in ‘Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and another’ 2024 SCC Online SC 4354. 16. Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the aforesaid factors, it is hereby held that the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail, and that the present petition deserves to be allowed. 17. Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the present petition is hereby allowed. The petitioner is hereby ordered to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However, the abovesaid benefit shall be subject to following conditions:- i) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any other authority; ii) that the petitioner shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.14 09:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.25045 of 2026 (O&M) 7 the address to the Court concerned and shall notify the change in address to the trial Court, till the final decision of the trial; and iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of trial Court. 18. It is, however, made clear that any observation made hereinabove is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 13.07.2026 Manoj Bhutani Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.14 09:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document