[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rani Devi vs State Of Haryana on 16 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
149 CRM-M-11899-2026
Date of decision: 16.03.2026
Date of uploading: 16.03.2026
Rani Devi ....Petitioner
V/s
State of Haryana ....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Mr. Sahil Choudhary Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior DAG, Haryana.
*****
SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)
1. Present petition is the third attempt, which has been filed
under Section 483 of BNS 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in
case bearing FIR No. 31 dated 20.02.2023, registered under Sections 302
and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (now corresponding to Sections 103
and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) and Section 25 of the Arms Act,
1959, at Police Station Sector 20, Panchkula, District Panchkula, Haryana.
2. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out by the
petitioner in the present petition) is as follows:-
1 of 8
CRM-M-11899-2026 Page |2
"The copy of the letter is as follows: In service Incharge Police
Chowki Sector 19 Panchkula Sir, I request that I Rajesh Gupta
son of Shri Ram Narayan Gupta resident of House No. 488
Village Mouli Police Station Mouli Jangra U.T. Chandigarh,
my age is 35 years. My permanent address is village Bainiwad
Police Station Katra District Muzaffarpur Bihar. And I am
living in Chandigarh since childhood. My mother's father had
four brothers. Out of which one brother's son is Shiv Kumar
Shah son Rajendra Shah Village Mahmadabad Police Station
Birsinghpur District Samastipur Bihar. By relation Shiv Kumar
Shah is my maternal uncle. My maternal uncle has been living
with his family in village Abhaypur House No. 348 Panchkula
for many years and my maternal uncle is married to Rani Devi
for about 17 years. He has two children, elder daughter Simran
Kumari age 16 years and younger son Shiva Kumar age 15
years. My maternal uncle Shiv Kumar Sah had earlier worked
in Shakti Bhog Flour Mill Plot No. 3 Phase-2 Panchkula for
many years. But after this mill was closed, my maternal uncle
Shiv Kumar Sah used to do daily wage labour. My maternal
uncle Shiv Kumar nowadays works as a labourer at a tile stone
shop near Patiala Road Zirakpur. When my maternal uncle
used to work in the flour mill, he used to work for a contractor
named Vijendra. Due to which Vijendra used to come to my
maternal uncle's house. My maternal aunt Rani Devi had an
illicit relationship with Vijendra. About which my maternal
uncle used to tell me sometimes. Due to this reason, in the
month of June 2022, my maternal aunt Rani Devi left her
children and went away from home and later came back. But
there was a rift between my maternal uncle and aunt regarding
this matter. Today on 20.02.2023, I received a call from my
brother Ramnath's mobile number 6283959756 from my
maternal village Mahmadabad district Samastipur Bihar on
mobile number 6206709746. When I talked on the phone, my
maternal grandfather Ganesh told me that someone has killed
your maternal uncle Shiv Kumar Sah and thrown him in Plot
No. 33 Phase-2 Panchkula. Find out about this. After this, I
reached my maternal uncle Shiv Kumar Sah's house where my
maternal aunt Rani Devi told me that on 19.02.2023, my
maternal uncle Shiv Kumar Sah returned home from his work at
2 of 8
CRM-M-11899-2026 Page |3
around 09.00 pm with household goods. When. my maternal
aunt Rani Devi asked my maternal uncle to eat food, he told me
that I will eat after some time. After that my uncle went to his
friend Madhav's room and when he did not return home for
about an hour, my aunt and her son Shiva Kumar went to
Madhav's room and saw that my uncle was not there. Madhav
was found in the room. He told us to go home. Shiv Kumar Sah
must have gone somewhere. He will return in a little while.
After this, my maternal uncle's son Shiva Kumar called my
uncle's mobile number 7280058438 from his mobile number
9041468438 at around 10.30 pm. My uncle told us that he
would return home in a little while. You all go to sleep. After
this, my aunt and the children went to sleep and my uncle did
not return home the whole night. After this, we came to the spot,
Plot No. 33, Phase-2, Panchkula. Where the dead body of my
maternal uncle Shiv Kumar Sah is lying behind the trucks in an
empty plot with wounds on his neck, chest, stomach. There are
many deep wounds on the left leg and left hand caused by a
sharp-edged weapon. I am sure that my maternal aunt Rani
Devi, in connivance with Vijendra Thekedar, has killed my
maternal uncle Shiv Kumar Sah by stabbing him with a sharp-
edged weapon to eliminate him due to their illicit relations.
Legal action should be taken against them. SD-Rajesh Gupta."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner is in custody since 22.02.2023. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has further submitted the petitioner has been falsely implicated
into the FIR in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further
argued that assuming arguendo, the prosecution version available at this
juncture is taken to be correct, the case is not on an eye witness account
and the co-accused is stated to be paramour of the petitioner, on account of
which the husband of the petitioner was murdered. Learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner is in
3 of 8
CRM-M-11899-2026 Page |4
custody for more than 3 years and is a lady with clean antecedents. Thus,
regular bail is prayed for.
4. Learned State counsel opposed the grant of bail to the
petitioner by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and,
thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail.
Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated
14.03.2026 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 22.02.2023 whereinafter
investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 20.04.2023.
Total 20 prosecution have been cited, out of which 7 have been examined
and 3 have been given up till date. It is not in dispute that the conclusion of
trial will take long time. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer
herein to the dicta passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court Javed Gulam
Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2024(3) RCR
(Criminal) 494, relevant whereof reads thus:
"18. Criminals are not born out but made. The human
potential in everyone is good and so, never write off any criminal
as beyond redemption. This humanist fundamental is often missed
when dealing with delinquents, juvenile and adult. Indeed, every
saint has a past and every sinner a future. When a crime is
committed, a variety of factors is responsible for making the
offender commit the crime. Those factors may be social and
economic, may be, the result of value erosion or parental neglect;
may be, because of the stress of circumstances, or the
manifestation of temptations in a milieu of affluence contrasted
with indigence or other privations.
4 of 8
CRM-M-11899-2026 Page |5
19. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the
court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the
fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as
enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or
any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail
on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of
the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime."
The rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties; as
to the whether the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR, shall
be gone into 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 rights of either of the parties. Nothing tangible has been
brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding
from the process of justice or interfering with the remaining prosecution
evidence.
6.2. The petitioner is a lady aged about 38 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
5 of 8
CRM-M-11899-2026 Page |6
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 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."
6.3. Indubitably, the present petition is the third attempt on behalf
of the petitioner for securing regular bail. The first one bearing no. CRM-
M-64763-2024 was dismissed on 25.03.2025 (Annexure P-5) whereas the
second one bearing CRM-M-31336-2025 was dismissed as withdrawn on
27.11.2025 (Annexure P-6). However, keeping in view the entirety of
facts and circumstance of the case in hand especially keeping in view the
extended custody and pace of trial, this Court is inclined to favourably
consider the instant plea for bail. A profitable reference, in this regard, can
be made to a judgment of this Court passed in CRA-S-2332-2023 titled as
Rafiq Khan versus State of Haryana and another; relevant whereof reads
as under:
"10. As an epilogue to the above discussion, the following
principles emerge:
6 of 8
CRM-M-11899-2026 Page |7
I Second/successive regular bail petition(s) filed is
maintainable in law & hence such petition ought not to be
rejected solely on the ground of maintainability thereof.
II. Such second/successive regular bail petition(s) is
maintainable whether earlier petition was dismissed as
withdrawn/dismissed as not pressed/dismissed for non-
prosecution or earlier petition was dismissed on merits.
III For the second/successive regular bail petition(s) to
succeed, the petitioner/applicant shall be essentially/pertinently
required to show substantial change in circumstances and
showing of a mere superficial or ostensible change would not
suffice. The metaphoric expression of seeking second/successive
bail plea(s) ought not be abstracted into literal iterations of
petition(s) without substantial, effective and consequential
change in circumstances.
IV No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid down as to
what would constitute substantial change in circumstances as
every case has its own unique facts/circumstance. Making such
an attempt is nothing but an utopian endeavour. Ergo, this issue
is best left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court
dealing with such second/successive regular bail petition(s).
V In case a Court chooses to grant second/successive
regular bail petition(s), cogent and lucid reasons are pertinently
required to be recorded for granting such plea despite such a
plea being second/successive petition(s). In other words, the
cause for a Court having successfully countenanced/entertained
such second/successive petition(s) ought to be readily and clearly
decipherable from the said order passed."
7. As per the custody certificate dated 14.03.2026 filed by the
learned State counsel, the petitioner has suffered incarceration for 3 years
& 23 days and is not shown to be involved in any other FIR/case.
Suffice to say, the further detention of the petitioner in custody
is not required in the facts and circumstances of the case.
8. 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:
7 of 8
CRM-M-11899-2026 Page |8
(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.
9. 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
State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the
petitioner.
10. Ordered accordingly.
11. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression
of opinion on the merits of the case.
12. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous
application, if any, shall also stands disposed off.
(SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE
March 16, 2026
Naveen Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
8 of 8
