[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Narinder Kaur @Nandi vs State Of Punjab on 27 April, 2026

                                 CRM-M-13716-2026 (O&M)
                                                                  1

                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                                                CHANDIGARH
                      218                                 CRM-M-13716-2026 (O&M)
                                                           Decided on : 27.04.2026

                      Narinder Kaur @Nandi
                                                                                          ..... Petitioner
                                                          VERSUS
                      State of Punjab
                                                                                        ..... Respondent
                      CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH

                      Present:      Mr. Chandan Singh Rana, Advocate and
                                    Ms. Komal Sohi, Advocate
                                    for the petitioner.


                                                *****
                      SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (Oral)

This petition is the first petition for bail, filed by the petitioner

under Section 483 of 'the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita', 2023. It has

been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.133 dated 18.06.2024,

for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 103, 303, 333, 351,

191(2), 190, 238 and 305 of , Police Station

City Jagraon, District Ludhiana Rural.

2. The FIR of this case came into being at the instance of

'Harpreet Kaur' hereinafter being referred to as 'complainant' only. It was

stated by the abovenamed complainant that on 17.06.2024, she along with

her husband Jasvir Singh was present at her home, where, at about 11:00

a.m., a group comprising of Partap Singh @Channi, Jota Pardhan, Deepu,

Narinder Kaur @Nandi (the petitioner herein), Amna, Pooja, Nandi's

nephew, Kala, Babu and few other persons, forcibly entered. According to

CRM-M-13716-2026 (O&M)

complainant, at that point of time they all were armed with baseball bats and

sticks, and that the abovementioned group launched an assault upon her

husband, thrashed him mercilessly, and inflicted multiple injures on his

body.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that in view of abovementioned

statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab appears on behalf of

respondent-State. Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed

with. Custody Certificate as well as status report has been filed by learned

State Counsel. The same be taken on record.

6. Heard.

7. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that

the petitioner has clean antecedent and she has already served imprisonment

for a period of more than one year and nine months. According to learned

counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner being a female deserves a

considerate view and that similar benefit has been accorded to the similarly

placed co-accused. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the only

role attributed to the petitioner is that, that she was armed with a wooden

stick and inflicted a blow on the leg and other parts of the body of deceased

during the course of scuffle.

8. The learned State Counsel has controverted the

abovementioned arguments. According to learned State Counsel, the

petitioner cannot claim parity with another co-accused, as the other co-

CRM-M-13716-2026 (O&M)

accused were not carrying any arm at the time of commission of offence,

whereas the present petitioner was armed with a wooden stick.

9. The record has been perused carefully.

10. A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are

the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a

decision:-

i. that the petitioner being a female deserves a considerate view;

ii. that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more than one year and nine months;

iii. that the investigation in this case is already complete, and therefore, nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner;

iv. that the petitioner has clean antecedents; v. that the injury which is proved to be fatal has not been attributed to the petitioner;

vi. that the only injury attributed to the petitioner is on the leg and other parts of the body of deceased; vii. that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future, as out of twenty six prosecution witness, not even a single witness has been examined so far; viii. that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any purpose;

ix. that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; and

x. that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the trial.

CRM-M-13716-2026 (O&M)

11. In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of "Dataram versus State of

Uttar Pradesh and another", 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, are relevant,

wherein it has been 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".

12. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court of

India in the case of 'Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of

CRM-M-13716-2026 (O&M)

Investigation and Another', (2022) 10 SCC 51, are also relevant in this case.

In the abovementioned 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 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".

13. Recently, in the case of 'Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of

Chhattisgarh', 2025 SCC Online SC 322, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India has 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 abovementioned 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".

14. 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,

CRM-M-13716-2026 (O&M)

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.

15. If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors,

involved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to a

conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of bail, and that the

present petition deserves to be allowed.

16. 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 abovementioned concession

shall be subject to following conditions:-

(i) 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.

(ii) 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 final decision of the trial;

and

(iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court.

(SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 27.04.2026 Vinod Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No