[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manish Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 20 March, 2026
CRM-M-70744-2025 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-70744-2025
Manish Kumar
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
Sr. No. Particulars Details
1 The date when the judgment is reserved 18.03.2026
2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 20.03.2026
3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 20.03.2026
Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or full
4 Full
judgment is pronounced
The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and Not
5
reasons thereof applicable
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present: Mr. Azad Khan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
***
MANISHA BATRA, J :-
The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') by the
petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 403 dated
26.08.2025 registered under Section 107 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
(for short 'BNS') at Police Station Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar, Mohali.
2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written
1 of 4
complaint submitted by the complainant Ranjna alleging therein that she was
married and was residing in Zirakpur. Her younger sister Chhaya Kumari had
come to stay at her house on 04.07.2025. On 26.08.2025, she had committed
suicide by hanging herself by tying a noose to the fan. She had left a suicide
note wherein she had mentioned that she was being harassed by the present
petitioner and his family members. The complainant as such prayed for taking
action against the petitioner by alleging that he was responsible for suicide of
her sister. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated.
The petitioner was arrested on 31.08.2025. Subsequently, a handwritten diary
of the deceased was also produced by the complainant before the police which
was taken into possession. Investigation now stands concluded.
3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been
falsely implicated in this case. He is in custody since 31.08.2025. He is not
required for further investigation. The ingredients for commission of offence
under Section 107 of BNS are not attracted as there is nothing on record to
suggest that he had abetted suicide by the victim in any manner whatsoever.
The allegations do not show any proximate act committed by the petitioner
immediately before the suicide of the victim that could be considered to be a
cause for the suicide. The victim who was a 17-year-old girl might have taken
extreme step due to emotional immaturity. No useful purpose would be served
by detaining the petitioner in custody anymore. His antecedents are clean. It
is, therefore, argued that he deserves to be released on bail.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that there are serious
2 of 4
allegations against the petitioner. The victim had left a note holding the
petitioner responsible for committing suicide by her. The allegations make out
a prima facie case for commission of subject offence as against the petitioner.
There are chances of his absconding or committing similar offences, if
extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not
deserve to be allowed.
5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties at
considerable length.
6. The petitioner is alleged to have abetted suicide by the victim.
The victim is stated to have left a suicide note, copy of which has been
annexed with the status report as Annexure R-3. On perusal of contents of the
same, it is revealed that the victim had written that after promising to perform
marriage with her and emotionally blackmailing her, the petitioner did not
stand by her when the question of her marriage with him came. She alleged
that the petitioner had been extending threats to send their photos to her family
members. She is shown to have written that despite the fact that she had fought
with her own family with regard to the petitioner, he was no longer with her.
The allegations prima facie shows the complicity of the petitioner in the
commission of the subject offence. However, he has now been in custody for
a period of more than six months. There are no chances of conclusion of trial
in near future as no prosecution witness has been examined so far. The
continued detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose. It is
well settled that pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-
3 of 4
conviction sentencing and that bail is the rule and jail is an exception. The
object of jail is to secure appearance of the accused during trial, and it cannot
be preventive or punitive. Taking into consideration the nature of the subject
offences, the period spent by the petitioner in custody and the attendant facts
and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is allowed and the
petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing
personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief
Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned.
7. It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove
shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case
and shall not influence the outcome of the trial.
8. Since the main petition has already been disposed of, pending
application, if any, is rendered infructuous.
[MANISHA BATRA]
JUDGE
20th March, 2026
Parveen Sharma
1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No
2. Whether reportable : Yes / No
4 of 4
