229 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-26035-2026 Date of Decision:20.07.2026 Mandeep Kaur @ Aman …Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab …Respondent Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat Present : Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Rana, Sr. DAG, Punjab. *** N.S.Shekhawat J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner has filed the second petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C (Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) with a prayer to grant regular bail to her in case FIR No.183 dated 06.11.2023, registered under Sections 302,120-B and 34 of IPC {Sections 103, 61(2) and 3(5) of B.N.S}, at Police Station Shahkot, District Jalanhdar (Annexure P-1). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the F.I.R was initially registered on the statement made by Ajay Kumar, brother of the deceased and the petitioner was not arrayed as an accused in the present case. He further submits that during the course of investigation, it was alleged that the petitioner was having illicit relations with Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi and she got her husband Suraj Kumar murdered. He further submits that even as per the admitted case of the prosecution, the injuries were caused to Suraj Kumar by Gurpreet Singh, Jobanpreet Singh and Harjinder Singh. It has been falsely alleged that the petitioner had caught hold of the deceased, while the injuries HITESH 2026.07.20 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-26035-2026 -2 were caused by her co-accused, which is highly unbelievable and the petitioner was arrested in the present case on 07.11.2023 and is in custody for the last about 02 years and 08 months. Even, no recovery was effected from the petitioner and she is not in a position to influence the prosecution witnesses. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that serious allegations have been levelled against the present petitioner and she does not deserve the concession of bail by this Court. However, he admits that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 02 years and 08 months. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 5. It is not in dispute that only allegation against the present petitioner is that she had caught hold of the deceased, while injuries were caused to him by Gurpreet Singh and two his friends namely Jobanpreet Singh and Harjinder Singh. Apart from that, no other role was attributed to the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is clearly distinguishable from the case of Gurpreet Singh, Jobanpreet Singh and Harjinder Singh. Moreover, the prosecution has been able to examine only 05 witnesses, out of total 24 witnesses so far. Thus, further custody of the petitioner will not serve any meaningful purpose. 6. Without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail pending trial on her furnishing bail bonds and surety to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/ Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate. (N.S.SHEKHAWAT) 20.07.2026 JUDGE hitesh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No HITESH 2026.07.20 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh