[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rekha Rani vs State Of Haryana on 15 January, 2026
CRM-M No.283 of 2026 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
253
*****
CRM-M No.283 of 2026
Date of decision : 15.1.2026
Date of uploading : 16.1.2026
Rekha Rani .............Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana .......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Mr. Anshuman Dalal, Advocate, for the petitioner
Ms. Priyanka Sadar, Senior DAG, Haryana
---
SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)
1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') for grant of
regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.639 dated 16.10.2025 under
Sections 318(4) and 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 3,
3-B, 4, 5, 6, 18, 23, 25, 27 and 29 of PNDT Act, 1994, registered at Police
Station Shahbad, Kurukshetra.
2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an
accused of being involved in the illegal sex determination test of pregnant
ladies.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner is in custody since 16.10.2025. Learned counsel has further
argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in
1 of 5
question. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner had
actually rented out her premises to one co-accused Amarjit Kaur, who is
the main accused. Learned counsel has further submitted that the
petitioner is a lady aged 44 years with clean antecedents. Learned counsel
has further submitted that, in any case, investigation qua the FIR is
complete and challan already stands presented and culmination thereof
take long. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.
4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by
arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the
petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned
State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 14.1.2026
in Court, which is taken on record.
5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the
available records of the case.
6. The petitioner was arrested on 16.10.2025 whereinafter
investigation was carried out and challan stands presented on 10.11.2025.
Total 13 prosecution witnesses have been cited and it is not in dispute that
none has been examined till date. The rival contentions raised by learned
counsel give rise to debatable issues which shall be ratiocinated upon
during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to
delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice
the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the
likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or
interfering with the prosecution evidence.
2 of 5
6.1 At this juncture, it would be noticeable that the petitioner is a
lady aged about 45 years (As per memo of parties appended with the
petition), hence, bail petition ought to be considered in view of proviso to
Section 480(2) BNSS. It is pertinent to mention herein that the proviso to
Section 480 BNSS, 2023, is pari materia with proviso to Section 437
Cr.P.C., 1973. In this regard, it would be apposite to refer herein to a
judgment passed by this Court on 14.03.2024 in CRM-M-11503-2024
titled as 'Ravinder Kaur Vs. State of Punjab' (dealing with proviso to
Section 437 Cr.P.C.), relevant thereof reads as under:
"It would be apposite to refer herein to the dicta of a judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of 'Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation & Anr., 2022(10) SCC 51' , which held as
under:
51. Proviso to Section 437 of the Code mandates that when the accused
is under the age of sixteen years, sick or infirm or being a woman, is
something which is required to be taken note of. Obviously, the court
has to satisfy itself that the accused person is sick or infirm. In a case
pertaining to women, the court is expected to show some sensitivity. We
have already taken note of the fact that many women who commit
cognizable offenses are poor and illiterate. In many cases, upon being
young they have children to take care of, and there are many instances
when the children are to live in prisons. The statistics would show that
more than 1000 children are living in prisons along with their mothers.
This is an aspect that the courts are expected to take note of as it would
not only involve the interest of the accused, but also the children who
are not expected to get exposed to the prisons. There is a grave danger
of their being inherited not only with poverty but with crime as well.
xxxx xxxx xxx
58. Section 437 of the Code empowers the Magistrate to deal with all
the offenses while considering an application for bail with the
exception of an offense punishable either with life imprisonment or
death triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions. The first proviso
facilitates a court to conditionally release on bail an accused if he is
under the age of 16 years or is a woman or is sick or infirm, as
discussed earlier. This being a welfare legislation, though introduced
by way of a proviso, has to be applied while considering release on bail
either by the Court of Sessions or the High Court, as the case may be.
The power under Section 439 of the Code is exercised against an order
rejecting an application for bail and against an offence exclusively
decided by the Court of Sessions. There cannot be a divided application
of proviso to Section 437, while exercising the power under Section
439. While dealing with a welfare legislation, a purposive
interpretation giving the benefit to the needy person being the
intendment is the role required to be played by the court. We do not
3 of 5
wish to state that this proviso has to be considered favourably in all
cases as the application depends upon the facts and circumstances
contained therein. What is required is the consideration per se by the
court of this proviso among other factors.'
6.2 As per custody certificate dated 14.1.2026 filed by learned State
counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 2
months and 29 days & is not shown to be involved in any other case.
Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial
is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is
ordered to be released on regular bail on her furnishing bail/surety bonds
to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate.
However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned
trial Court/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the
following conditions:-
(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.
(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral
or documentary, during the trial.
(iii) The petitioner shall not absent herself on any date
before the trial.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on
bail.
(v) The petitioner shall deposit her passport, if any, with
the trial Court.
(vi) The petitioner shall give her cellphone number to the
Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station
and shall not change her cell-phone number without
prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the
trial.
8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those
which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed
hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the
4 of 5
State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the
petitioner.
9. Ordered accordingly.
10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of
opinion on the merits of the case.
(SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE
15.1.2026
Ashwanii
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
