[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhumika vs State Of Punjab on 30 April, 2026
CRM-M-12224 of 2026 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
231 CRM-M-12224 of 2026
Date of Decision: 30.04.2026
Bhumika ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL
Present: Mr. A.S. Manaise, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rahul Jindal, AAG, Punjab.
*****
RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J (ORAL)
1. Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the
petitioner in case FIR No.304 dated 10.11.2025 registered under Sections
103 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station
Dinanagar, District Gurdaspur.
2. Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner along with
other accused murdered one Sunil Kumar (son of the complainant). Hence,
the present FIR.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case because of the
reason that she is the daughter of the main accused (Tarsem Singh). He
further submitted that the petitioner is a young girl of 21 years and studying
in B.A. at Swami Swatantartan and Memorial College, Dinanagar and she
has no concern with the death of the deceased. He argued that if the
contents of the FIR are taken to be true, even then no specific role/injury is
attributed to the present petitioner. He further argued that later on, the
complainant improved his version and got recorded his supplementary
statement dated 10.11.2025 wherein he stated that the petitioner had caught
hold of the legs of the deceased, casting serious doubt on the prosecution
story and substantiate that the implication of the petitioner in the present
case is after thought of the complainant. Moreover, the petitioner has clean
antecedents as she is not involved in any other case and no recovery is to be
effected from her. The petitioner is in custody since 10.11.2025. The
investigation in the case is complete, challan stands presented and charges
have also been framed. He further submitted that there are total 23
prosecution witnesses but none has been examined till date and as such, the
trial will take a long time to conclude and no useful purpose would be served
by keeping her behind bars. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves
to be allowed.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the custody
certificate of the petitioner and status report in the matter, which are taken
on record and while referring to the status report, he has vehemently
opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the offence
committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. However, he has not
controverted the fact that the petitioner is a first time offender as she is not
involved in any other case.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after
perusing the record of the case, it is evident that the petitioner is in custody
for the last more than 05 months; investigation is complete; challan stands
presented; charges framed; out of 23 witnesses, none has been examined till
date; the complicity of the petitioner is a matter of trial; which is proceeding
at snail's pace, and will take a long time to conclude. Thus, no useful
purpose would be served by detaining her in further custody. Her continued
detention without the prospect of trial being concluded in the near future
would be violative of her rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
6. Reliance is placed upon a judgment in the case of Dataram
Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131,
wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that keeping somebody behind the
bars, till her guilt is proved, for an indefinite period amounts to infringement
of her right to life and liberty, as enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution
of India and is against the principle "bail is a rule" and "jail is an
exception".
7. The foundational concept of the criminal jurisprudence is to
ensure speedy trial. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly reiterated
that right to speedy trial is enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of
India. Speedy trial would cover investigation, enquiry, trial, appeal, revision
and retrial etc. i.e. everything starting with the accusation against the
accused and expiring with the final verdict of the last Court.
8. In this regard, reference is being made to the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the context of right to speedy trial under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India on the following decision:- Akhtari Bi
Vs. State of M.P., (2001) 4 SCC 355, Surinder Singh Alias Shingara Singh
Vs. State of Punjab, (2005) SCC (Crl) 1674, P. Ramachandra Rao Vs.
State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 SCC 578, Babu Singh and others Vs. State of
U.P., (1978) 1 SCC 579, Takht Singh and others Vs. State of M.P., (2001)
10 SCC 463; Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No.2356 of 2010, Kushal Singh
Vs. State of U.P. (2JJ.) and Fazal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 5
SCC 752.
9. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the
petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on her furnishing bail
bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty
Magistrate/CJM concerned. It is clarified that nothing stated herein shall be
construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
(RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL)
30.04.2026 JUDGE
D.Bansal
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
