Paramjeet Kaur Alias Nimmo v. State Of Punjab
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : February 06, 2025 Paramjeet Kaur @ Nimmo ...... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI *** Present :- Mr. Dinesh Trehan Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. P. S. Bhandari, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab. *** JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J (Oral) 1.
The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.164 dated 03.10.2024, under Sections 137(2)/96 of B.N.S and Section 61(2) of B.N.S Act, 2023 added later on registered at Police Station Ferozepur, District Ferozepur.
2.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and the main allegations in the present FIR were against her son that he has taken away the daughter of the complainant and the petitioner has no role to play. He further submitted that the investigation has already been completed and the petitioner was nominated later on the basis of the fact that she aided her son in the commission of the offence under Section 61 (2) of B.N.S., 2023. He has submitted that after the
completion of investigation, the challan has been presented and the petitioner being a lady of the age of 44 years and has already faced incarceration for 3 months and 4 days, therefore, she may be considered for grant of regular bail.
3.
On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that so far as the custody of the petitioner is concerned, it is correct that she has faced incarceration for 3 months and 4 days and the police has already completed the investigation. He further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner were with regard to Section 61(2) of B.N.S., 2023 only and as per the allegations she aided her son in the commission of offence. He has also submitted that after completion of the investigation, challan has been presented and the petitioner being a lady of the age of 44 years has already faced incarceration for 3 months and 4 days. He has further submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any other case and has clean antecedents. 4.
I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 5.
The petitioner is a lady of the age of 44 years and has already suffered incarceration for 3 months and 4 days and the police has already completed the investigation. The allegations against her are with regard to aiding her son. The police has already completed the investigation. It is not the case of the State counsel that in case, the petitioner is granted bail, then she may abscond or tamper with evidence.
6.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the stage whereby investigation of the case has been completed and the fact that the petitioner is a lady of the age of 44 years, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail.
7.
Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on furnishing bail bond/surety bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case. 8.
However, anything observed hereinabove shall not be treated as an expression of opinion on merits of the case and is only meant for the purpose of decision of present petition. February 06, 2025 ( JASGURPREET SINGH PURI) archana JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether Reportable :
No