110+228 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. M-23104 of 2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14.07.2026 Jasdeep Kaur ... Petitioner(s) Versus State of Punjab and Another ... Respondent(s) CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh. Present: Mr. Bhanu Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Rohit Bansal, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent. Surya Partap Singh, J. CRM-26777-2026 1. This is an application seeking for permission to place certain documents on record. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is hereby allowed and the documents (Annexures P5 & P6) annexed with the application are taken on record. CRM-M-23104-2026 2. This petition for bail is the first 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. 159 dated 29.09.2025, for the commission of offence punishable under Section(s) 103 & 3(5) of ‘the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023’ Police Station City, Fazilka, District Fazilka, Punjab. 3. The FIR of this case came into being at the instance of ‘Sumanpreet Kaur’ hereinafter being referred to as “complainant” only. It DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.15 13:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No. M-23104 of 2026 (O&M) 2 was stated by the above named complainant that her brother, namely, ‘Jaskaran Singh’ was married to ‘Jasdeep Kaur’ (the petitioner herein). According to above-named complainant, on 27.09.2025 her sister-in-law, i.e. the petitioner called her and told that ‘Jaskaran Singh’ had passed away. As per complainant, she along with her husband went to the house of her brother and thereafter, shifted her dead body to their parental home. According to complainant when they were in the process of his cremation, it was noticed that there were some injury marks on the neck, back and lower abdomen of ‘Jaskaran Singh’. As per complainant, thereafter it was revealed that ‘Jaskaran Singh’ had not committed suicide, but he was killed by his wife with the help of co-accused, namely ‘Narinder Singh’, who was in visiting terms with the petitioner. 4. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to above- mentioned complaint, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. As per prosecution, during the course of investigation the body of ‘Jaskaran Singh’ was got examined post-mortem and the post- mortem report was collected. 5. Heard. 6. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the present case is a case wherein there is no iota of evidence against the petitioner and, merely, on the basis of suspicion the petitioner and her co- accused, namely ‘Narinder Singh’ have been implicated in the present case. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of nine months & eight days, and that the statement of complainant has already been recorded, wherein also, except DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.15 13:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No. M-23104 of 2026 (O&M) 3 the element of suspicion she has failed to bring any reliable evidence on record. 7. The learned State counsel has controverted the above- mentioned arguments. According to learned State counsel in the present case following two aspects are necessary to be taken into consideration:- a) that the death of ‘Jaskaran Singh’ was an unnatural death, i.e. by strangulation; and b) that at the time of death of ‘Jaskaran Singh’, only the petitioner was present in the house. 8. According to learned Stater counsel, the conduct of the petitioner speaks in volumes against her. As per learned State counsel, once the death of ‘Jaskaran Singh’ was unnatural death, the petitioner should have reported the matter to the police, so that post-mortem examination of the body of ‘Jaskaran Singh’ could have been conducted, but by misguiding the complainant, she tried to cremate the deceased and this fact, in itself, is sufficient to draw an inference that the petitioner was responsible for the death of ‘Jaskaran Singh’. 9. In response to the above-mentioned argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that contents of the FIR itself show that it was not the sole decision of the petitioner to cremate the dead body of deceased ‘Jaskaran Singh’ without reporting the matter to the police. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the FIR itself shows that on receipt of information about the death of ‘Jaskaran Singh’, the complaint along with her husband visited the house of ‘Jaskaran Singh’ and in her presence the dead body of ‘Jaskaran Singh’ was being shifted to his native place. As per DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.15 13:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No. M-23104 of 2026 (O&M) 4 learned counsel for the petitioner till that stage, no information was given by the complainant to the police, which shows that at initial stage, there was no indication that the death of ‘Jaskaran Singh’ was homicidal and not suicidal. As per learned counsel for the petitioner if there would have been any intention to cremate the dead body of ‘Jaskaran Singh’ without post-mortem examination, the petitioner would not have informed the complainant, about the death of ‘Jaskaran Singh’, before his cremation. 10. The record has been perused carefully. 11. A perusal of the record shows that there are several factors which are required to be taken into consideration at this stage. Those factors are:- i) that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more nine months & eight days; ii) that the petitioner, being a female, deserves a considerate view; iii) that the petitioner has clean antecedents; iv) that the statement of complainant in the present case has already been recorded; v) that except the confessional statement of the petitioner and her co-accused, there is no iota of evidence in the present case, suggesting the involvement of petitioner in the commission of crime; vi) that even the circumstantial evidence nowhere shows that the death of ‘Jaskaran Singh’ was homicidal and not suicidal; DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.15 13:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No. M-23104 of 2026 (O&M) 5 vii) that there is only one circumstance whereupon the prosecution is banking upon, i.e. the attempt of petitioner to cremate the deceased without post-mortem examination. However, the above-mentioned plea does not seem to be a sound plea in view of the fact that if there would have been any such intention on the part of petitioner, instead of calling the complainant to her home and then trying to cremate him, the petitioner could have cremated the dead body of her husband at her own level; viii) that investigation in this case is already complete and therefore, nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner; ix) that detention of the petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any purpose; x) that trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future; xi) that there is nothing on record to show that while on bail, the petitioner is likely to tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; and xii) that there is nothing on record to show that while on bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the investigation. 12. With regard to the legal aspect involved in the instant case, it is relevant to mention that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Dataram v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another’ (2018) 3 Supreme Court Cases 22, DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.15 13:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No. M-23104 of 2026 (O&M) 6 has 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 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 Supreme Court Cases 51, are also relevant in this case. In the above mentioned 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 DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.15 13:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No. M-23104 of 2026 (O&M) 7 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 v. State of Chhattisgarh’, 2025 SCC Online SC 322 the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India 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 India in the above mentioned 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 the accused as mandated by Hon’ble Apex court in ‘Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and Another’ 2024 SCC Online SC 4354. 16. If the cumulative effect of all the above mentioned factors, involved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to a conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of bail, and that the DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.15 13:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No. M-23104 of 2026 (O&M) 8 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 above said concession shall be subject to following conditions:- a) 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 to disclose such facts to the Court or to any other authority; b) that the petitioner shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Court concerned and shall notify the change in address to the trial Court, till the conclusion of trial; and c) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court. 18. It is, however, clarified that any observations made in the above-mentioned order shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (Surya Partap Singh) Judge July 14, 2026 “DK” Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.15 13:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document