CRM-M-33973-2026 (O&M) -:1:- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (229) CRM-M-33973-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision:14.07.2026 PARAMJEET KAUR … Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ... Respondent -.- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Brar, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Navreet Kaur, AAG, Punjab. -.- VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral) 1. The present petition, being the first under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), has been filed seeking the concession of regular bail during the pendency of trial in FIR No. 70 dated 10.06.2025, registered under Sections 103, 109, 3(5) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 302, 307, 120- B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860), at Police Station Gidderbaha, District Sri Muktsar Sahib (Annexure P-1). 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is founded upon the statement of the complainant, Jagtar Singh, son of Surjeet Singh, resident of Village Gurusar, who alleged that his younger brother, Shivtar Singh, had solemnized his marriage with Kusumdeep Kaur, daughter of Gurpyar GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.15 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-33973-2026 (O&M) -:2:- Singh, resident of Village Kot Fatta, District Bathinda, approximately four to five months prior to the occurrence. According to the complainant, Kusumdeep Kaur was dissatisfied with her matrimonial life and frequently quarrelled with her husband and other family members. It is further alleged that about one month prior to the occurrence, she had left the matrimonial home and eloped with one Jagrup Singh, resident of Village Kotli, District Mansa, but was subsequently brought back to the matrimonial home through the intervention of the village Panchayat. Despite her return, her conduct allegedly remained unchanged. 2.1. It is further alleged that on the night of 09.06.2025, while preparing meals, Kusumdeep Kaur allegedly administered poison in the food consumed by the family members, as a result of which the complainant's parents and brother started vomiting. Initially, a local doctor was summoned, but owing to the deterioration of their condition, they were shifted to the Civil Hospital, Gidderbaha. Thereafter, Shivtar Singh was referred to Bathinda for specialized treatment, where he succumbed to the effects of the alleged poisoning. The complainant's parents and Kusumdeep Kaur were admitted to Deep Hospital, Gidderbaha for medical treatment. It was further alleged that Kusumdeep Kaur, in conspiracy with Chamkaur Singh, resident of Village Kotli, District Mansa, Sandeep Singh, son of Gurpyar Singh, and Paramjeet Kaur, wife of Gurpyar Singh, residents of Village Kot Fatta, District Bathinda, had intentionally administered poison, resulting in the death of Shivtar Singh. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the present FIR came to be registered. 3. Notice of motion. GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.15 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-33973-2026 (O&M) -:3:- 4. At the very outset, Ms. Navreet Kaur, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent- State. The custody certificate tendered by the learned State counsel is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail and has prayed for dismissal of the present petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have carefully perused the paper book, the custody certificate and the material available on record with their able assistance. 6. A perusal of the custody certificate reveals that the applicant- petitioner has remained in judicial custody for approximately one year and twenty-seven days. It is not disputed that the petitioner is a woman, has clean antecedents, and, as per the custody certificate, is not involved in any other criminal case. The investigation stands concluded and the final report has already been presented before the competent Court. Significantly, the allegations against the petitioner are confined to her alleged involvement in a criminal conspiracy with her daughter, Kusumdeep Kaur, who is alleged to have administered the poisonous substance. At this stage, except for the omnibus allegation of conspiracy, no independent incriminating material has been brought on record to prima facie establish the petitioner's active participation in the commission of the alleged offence. Furthermore, the trial has not made any substantial progress and is likely to consume considerable time before reaching its logical conclusion. It is a settled proposition of law that the right to a speedy trial is an indispensable facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.15 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-33973-2026 (O&M) -:4:- India, and an undertrial cannot be subjected to indefinite incarceration when the trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time. Having regard to the period of custody already undergone, the completion of investigation, the petitioner's clean antecedents, her status as a woman, and the absence of any substantial progress in the trial, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by further prolonging her incarceration pending trial. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on regular bail. 6.1. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The applicant- petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, as the case may be, and subject further to the following conditions:- i. The petitioner(s) shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Court or to the Investigating Agency. ii. The petitioner(s) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever, nor shall the petitioner(s), directly or indirectly, attempt to influence, intimidate, or contact any prosecution witness. iii. The petitioner(s) shall not leave the territorial limits of India without obtaining the prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event any of the petitioner(s) is in possession of a passport, GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.15 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-33973-2026 (O&M) -:5:- the particulars thereof shall be furnished before the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court. iv. Before accepting the bail and surety bonds, the learned Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate/C.J.M. concerned shall obtain from the petitioner(s) the permanent residential address as well as the present correspondence address, duly supported by appropriate documentary proof. The Investigating Officer shall verify the correctness of the said addresses within 48 hours of the acceptance of the bail bonds and place a verification report on record. In the event any of the addresses is found to be false, fictitious, or incorrect, it shall be open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of the concession of bail in accordance with law. v. The petitioner(s) shall furnish before the learned Trial Court, either at the time of furnishing the bail bonds or within such period as may be specified by the Court, the Permanent Account Number (PAN), Aadhaar Number, particulars of all operative bank accounts, and a declaration disclosing details of immovable properties, if any. Any concealment of material particulars or furnishing of false information shall constitute a valid ground for seeking cancellation of the concession of bail in accordance with law. vi. The petitioner(s) shall intimate the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court, in writing, of any change in residential address or mobile number within seven days of such change. vii. The petitioner(s) shall not commit any offence of a similar nature during the pendency of the trial and shall remain present before the learned Trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless personal appearance is exempted in accordance with law. The petitioner(s) shall not absent from the proceedings without obtaining prior GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.15 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-33973-2026 (O&M) -:6:- permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event of violation of any of the aforesaid conditions or unauthorized absence from the trial proceedings, it shall be open to the learned Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law, including cancellation of the concession of bail and issuance of appropriate coercive process, including warrants of arrest. 7. In view of the final adjudication of the principal matter, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, arising out of or ancillary to the present proceedings, shall also stand disposed of in terms of the present order. Consequently, no separate or further orders are required to be passed thereon. ( VIRINDER AGGARWAL) 14.07.2026 JUDGE Gaurav Sorot Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No Whether reportable? Yes / No GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.15 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document