Hardeep Kaur v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Reserved on: 02.09.2025

Pronounced on: 18.09.2025 Hardeep Kaur

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:

Mr. Rahul Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Pooja Nayar Sharma, DAG, Punjab.

**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No.

Dated Police Station Sections 08.05.2024 Kulgarhi, District 302, 201, 34 IPC and 25/27 Ferozepur of Arms Act 1959 (offence u/s 25 of Arms Act deleted) 1.

The petitioner, who is a woman incarcerated in the FIR captioned above came before this Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail.

2.

Per paragraph 10 of the bail petition, the petitioner has clean antecedents. 3.

The facts and allegations are being taken from the reply filed by the State, which reads as follows:

"4. That brief facts of the case are that the FIR supra has been registered on the statement of Surjit Kaur wife of Baj Singh, r/o village Satiye Wala, Tehsil and District Ferozepur against 1)Harpreet Singh alias Sabha son of Malkit Singh, 2)Khushjeet Singh son of Harpreet Singh, 3)Hardeep kaur (present petitioner), on the allegations that their relative Harpreet Singh @Sahba son of Malkit Singh had forcibly got the land of his cousin Satpal Singh transferred in his name. The sons of complainant namely Sukhdev Singh @ Daddu and Balwinder Singh @ Binder had been preventing Harpreet Singh and his son Khushjit Singh from doing such act, due to which the accused had been keeping grudge in their mind against her sons. On 07.05.2024, at about 09.30 p.m., her younger son Balwinder

Singh, had gone to the house of Khushjit Singh to talk with them, but he did not came back home. She went to the house of Harpreet Singh and found that dead body of her son Balwinder Singh smeared with blood was lying in the courtyard and Hardeep Kaur wife of Harpreet Singh (present petitioner) was removing the blood spread over the floor by means of water. Harpreet Singh holding a gun and his son Khushjit Singh were also present there, who asked her to remove the dead body of her son and not to interfere with them. The complainant raised an alarm, whereupon the accused fled away from their house. Meanwhile, brother-in-law of complainant namely Raj Singh along with Bahadar Singh son of Pritam Singh reached at the spot and they took Balwinder Singh to Dr.Anil Baghi Hospital, Ferozepur City, where he was declared to be dead by the Doctors. Thus the instant case u/s 302,34,201 IPC and 25,27,54,59-A Arms Act was registered."

4.

The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family. Counsel further submits that the petitioner would have no objection whatsoever to any stringent conditions that this Court may impose, including that if the petitioner repeats the offense or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, the State may file an application to revoke this bail before the concerned Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and may do so at their discretion, to which the petitioner shall have no objection. 5.

The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to following portion of the reply, which read as follows:

"That accused Khushjeet Singh son of Harpreet Singh is yet to be arrested in this case and his arrest warrants were also got issued from the Ld.Illaqa Magistrate, Ferozepur for 22.07.2025. Positive and sincere efforts are being made to arrest him in this case. Medico-Legal Certificate/PMR of the deceased. Copy enclosed as Annexure R-1.

Weapon(s) used.

12 bore gun, which was later-on recovered by the police. Weapon and injuries attributed to the petitioner. 12 bore gun and gunshot injury is attributed to the petitioner. The evidence based on which the petitioner was arraigned as an accused. Except the sworn statement of complainant, who specifically named the present petitioner in her statement, there is other material in the shape of disclosure statement of petitioner, on the basis of which she got recovered

the shirt of deceased clotted with blood.

The evidence against the petitioner.

Sworn statement of complainant and the disclosure statement of petitioner herself."

REASONING:

6.

It shall be appropriate to extract the role of the petitioner from reply dated 20th of July 2025, which reads as follows:- "The role of the petitioner.

So far as the role of the petitioner is concerned, she along with other coaccused have committed the murder of Balwinder Singh. Thus the petitioner has committed heinous crime."

7.

As per the allegations made by the complainant, when she reached the house, she noticed Hardeep Kaur-petitioner was removing the blood spread over the floor by means of water. She also saw Harpreet Singh holding a gun and his son Khushjit Singh also present there, who asked her to remove the dead body of her son. Opinion mentioned in the postmortem report reads as follows:- "Cause of Death THE CAUSE OF DEATH IN THIS CASE IN OUR OPINION IS HEMORRHAGE AND SHOCK CONSEQUENT UPON FIREARM INJURY THE CHEST WHICH IS SUFFICIENT TO CAUSE DEATH IN ORDINARY COURSE OF NATURE."

8.

Counsel for the State has submitted that out of 23 witnesses, 11 have been examined and 10 witnesses were given up and it was for the petitioner to annex the copies of the statement of witnesses to establish that no specific role was attributed to her by witnesses. It would be in the interest of justice that this Court goes through the copies of the statements of the witnesses and non-annexing of such copies would also point towards a suspicion that why such copies were not annexed when statements had been recorded.

9.

Given above, present petition is dismissed with liberty to file a fresh with same power of attorney, after annexing copies of the statements of the witnesses. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 18.09.2025 anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable:

No.