CRM-M No.23742 of 2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.23742 of 2026 Date of decision: 27.07.2026 Shobha Bai ... Petitioner (wrongly written in MOP son of Ganga Ram whereas she is wife of Ganga Ram) Vs. State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Sahil Choudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana, for the respondent-State. *** MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) 1. The instant one is the second petition as filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”) seeking regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.147 dated 01.05.2023 registered under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC at Police Station Murthal, District Sonipat, Haryana. The previous petition as filed by her, had been dismissed as withdrawn. 2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of complaint lodged by Ganga Ram alleging therein that in the morning of PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.27 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.23742 of 2026 -2- 01.05.2023, he had left home along with his wife and two children for his work. His elder daughter Nitu was left alone at home. Subsequently, his wife had come home and had found Nitu to be dead. Postmortem examination of dead body of the victim was conducted and it was found that the death occurred due to Asphyxia consequent to manual strangulation. Her hymen was also found to be torn. Viscera contents were taken. During the course of investigation, Bhagat Singh in whose premises, the complainant Ganga Ram was residing submitted a written complaint that on 02.05.2023, Ganga Ram and his wife Shobha Bai i.e. the present petitioner, had come to his house and had confessed that infact both of them had killed their daughter as she used to talk with a boy and did not mend her ways even despite their trying to make her understand. The above named Bhagat Singh also produced the petitioner and the co-accused Ganga Ram at the police station, who were arrested. On interrogation, they suffered disclosure statements admitting their involvement in the crime. They demarcated the place of occurrence. Investigation now stands concluded. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that she has been falsely implicated in this case. There is no eye-witness to the occurrence. The case rests upon circumstantial evidence and there is no material to link her with the commission of offence of murder of her daughter. PW Bhagat Singh who was a witness to suffering of the alleged PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.27 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.23742 of 2026 -3- extra judicial confession by the petitioner has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution version. The trial will take time to conclude. Her further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. Each day spent by her in custody has furnished a new ground to her to seek concession of bail. Her antecedents are clean. It is, therefore, argued that she deserves to be released on bail. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that the present petition being successive one is not maintainable. It is further argued that the allegations against the petitioner are quite serious in nature. There is nothing to show that there would be any undue delay in conclusion of the trial. It is, therefore, urged that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 5. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. 6. The petitioner along with her husband who was lodger of the FIR, is alleged to have committed the murder of her own daughter. The case rests upon the statement recorded by Bhagat Singh landlord to the effect that the petitioner and the co-accused had made an extra judicial confession before him. However, a copy of his sworn deposition has been placed on record as Annexure P-4 which shows that he has not supported the prosecution version. The petitioner is in custody for a period of over 3 years and 02 months. The trial will take time to conclude. It is well settled proposition of law that an accused cannot be kept in custody for a PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.27 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.23742 of 2026 -4- prolonged period. There is nothing on record to show that the delay in conclusion of trial is attributable to the petitioner. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for release on bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted to bail subject to her furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned. 7. It is, however, clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 8. Since the main petition has already been disposed of, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous. (MANISHA BATRA) 27.07.2026 JUDGE Parveen Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.27 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document