CRM-M-36698-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (225) CRM-M-36698-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision:22.07.2026 MANJEET RANI … Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ... Respondent -.- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Vaibhav Sehgal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Rattu, AAG Punjab. Ms. Priyanka Behal, Advocate for the complainant. -.- VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral) 1. The present is the first petition instituted under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), seeking the concession of regular bail in connection with FIR No. 40 dated 15.02.2026, registered under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860), at Police Station Division B, Police Commissionerate, Amritsar, District Amritsar (Annexure P-1). 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the present FIR came to be registered on the statement of Harmeet Singh @ Goldy, son of Daljit Singh, resident of House No. 174, Gali No. 1, Shaheed Udham GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.23 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36698-2026 (O&M) 2 Singh Nagar, Amritsar. The complainant alleged that on 14.02.2026, at about 10:15 A.M., he, along with his family members, had gone to attend a marriage ceremony at Khassa, leaving his brother, Harshdeep Singh @ Gifty, alone at home. Upon their return at about 6:15 P.M., they allegedly found Harshdeep Singh hanging inside the house. It was further alleged that the deceased had been under mental stress and had repeatedly informed the complainant that his wife, Manjeet Rani (the present petitioner), and her brother, Gaurav, were harassing him, due to which he was contemplating ending his life. The complainant further alleged that, being unable to bear the harassment allegedly meted out by his wife and her brother, the deceased committed suicide. A purported suicide note, stated to have been authored by the deceased, was also produced before the investigating agency. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the present FIR came to be registered. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a law-abiding citizen who has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the petitioner, Manjeet Rani, is the legally wedded wife of the deceased, their marriage having been solemnised on 26.03.2025. The FIR has been registered solely on the basis of the statement of the complainant and the alleged suicide note. Learned counsel submits that even a plain reading of the FIR and the purported suicide note does not disclose any specific overt act attributable to the petitioner which could satisfy the essential ingredients of the offence of abetment of suicide punishable under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.23 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36698-2026 (O&M) 3 3.1. It is argued that there are no allegations demonstrating that the petitioner instigated, provoked, incited, intentionally aided or facilitated the commission of suicide by the deceased. The allegations are stated to be vague, omnibus and devoid of the necessary element of mens rea, which is an indispensable constituent of the offence of abetment. Learned counsel further submits that the allegations are unsupported by any independent corroborative material and are inherently improbable, particularly inasmuch as they cast aspersions upon the sanctity of the relationship between the petitioner and her brother. Even if the allegations are accepted in their entirety, they do not disclose any proximate or direct act on the part of the petitioner which could reasonably be construed as having driven the deceased to commit suicide. 3.2. It is further contended that similarly situated co-accused has been granted concession of anticipatory bail by this Court and claims parity. It is further submitted that for attracting the rigour of Section 108 BNS, there must exist a live and proximate nexus between the conduct attributed to the accused and the act of suicide. In the present case, no such nexus is discernible from the material collected during investigation. Learned counsel also submits that the authenticity and evidentiary value of the alleged suicide note itself are open to serious doubt, particularly when the FIR records that the same was produced by the complainant. It is further argued that there is no medical or other independent evidence directly connecting the petitioner with the commission of the alleged offence. Accordingly, prayer has been made for grant of the concession of regular bail. GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.23 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36698-2026 (O&M) 4 4. Notice of motion. 5. Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the State. The custody certificate produced by the learned State counsel is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. 5.1. Learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail, contending that having regard to the nature, gravity and seriousness of the allegations, as well as the manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail at this stage. It is, therefore, prayed that the present petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have carefully perused the paper-book with their able assistance. 7. It is not disputed that the petitioner has remained in judicial custody since 28.05.2026. It is further borne out from the record that a similarly situated co-accused, namely Jatinder Kumar, has been granted the concession of interim anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 09.07.2026 passed in CRM-M-33372-2026, wherein this Court, prima facie, found that his custodial interrogation was not warranted. The petitioner, therefore, claims the benefit of parity, which is a well- recognised principle governing the exercise of judicial discretion in matters relating to bail. GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.23 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36698-2026 (O&M) 5 7.1. This Court is equally mindful of the constitutional mandate embodied in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees not only the right to life and personal liberty but also the invaluable right to a speedy and expeditious trial. It is not disputed that the investigation stands concluded and the final report (challan) has already been presented before the competent Court. Consequently, the petitioner's further custodial interrogation is no longer required. The trial has yet to commence and is not likely to conclude in the foreseeable future. In such circumstances, continued incarceration of the petitioner would amount to punitive pre- trial detention, which is alien to the settled principles governing criminal jurisprudence. The object of pre-trial detention is to secure the presence of the accused during trial and not to inflict punishment before guilt is established in accordance with law. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the petitioner's incarceration pending trial. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, lest it prejudice either side during the course of trial, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has succeeded in making out a case for the grant of the concession of regular bail. 7.2. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The applicant- petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to her furnishing requisite bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned, as the case may be, and further subject to the following conditions:- GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.23 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36698-2026 (O&M) 6 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, 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 GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.23 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36698-2026 (O&M) 7 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 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. 8. Consequent upon the final adjudication of the principal matter, all pending miscellaneous applications whether arising out of or ancillary to the present proceedings shall stand disposed of in tandem. Inasmuch as the substantive rights of the parties have been definitively determined, the reliefs sought in the said interlocutory applications are rendered entirely infructuous, obviating the necessity for any separate or further judicial orders. ( VIRINDER AGGARWAL) 22.07.2026 JUDGE Gaurav Sorot Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No Whether reportable? Yes / No GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.23 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document