High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/11899/2026allowed

Rani Devi v. State Of Haryana

2026-03-16Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel8 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

Date of decision: 16.03.2026 Date of uploading: 16.03.2026

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present:

Mr. Sahil Choudhary Advocate for the petitioner. ***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) 1

! "#$ %&'('$ !

)*+&$, '((''('$ ! $(' ,'(-% * . / ,($ 0,/'1 % & 1 '2 ,323

'( 4!

' 5 !

)*+ 6! / !

P a g e | 2

# $ "

% & $' ()) *

, -'' % # ./ '+ # %%

0% 1

+ 3

0 ' 4% #

% %%'+ # 5 %

6 ' 7

6 5 1 # !% *

+#%6% 0

0 '0 1 # # # '+ # 6 #

& $'.()

# %# # #

% 2

8 '& % % % # # 9 % 1 # / '+ # 1 # %

% 0 :

$' . ;<

# '0

% # # 1 # % % % 6

' + #

1 # % 6

% =

' > # #

#% *!% ' 2 *!% % # # # 5 ' + # 2 %

*!% ' 46

# #

# # #' 2 # , <?<< # # 2

% %

##% #6'0

6 # # % %

' % <?'?<'<?<.

# # # 5 #6 #6 9<).

/ 8/9

# # #

+#%6% %

0 #6 #6 9<?98?

8(9' > % # # % " %# #

# 1 # % # $' .. ;<

' :%

' 4

%# # 1 # 5 # # 2 % # '?<'<?<.

# # 1 #

P a g e | 3 % ?

'?? # % %' >' # # 2%# # % %#

# #'4

% +%5 # % %%

# 6

# % 1 # +%5 #% # '+% % #'& % #'1 # # # ' &

# # 5 1 #

% #

5 #6 #6 8<)??/)(.)

# #6 #6

?((9)(.) % ?'.? #' + %

# % % %# %%

# '4

$'..

'> %%6% # # 1 # 6%

# %

#' # % %

% % 6 ;%% ' #

# # 2 *!% %

% # # 1 # 6 66# ;

%% # # %

' A

%6 #'2; !"

'B 3.

8 ! !

! ''(''('$ 8 !

)*+ 6! 8 ! ! ! # % ! 9 9 :! ! 4

! -

! !

! ! 8 !

P a g e | 4

! $

5! !

8 !

! the allegations raised are serious in nature and, thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. 8 ! 4

! ,"($'('0 .! 4 5.

I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

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:

)' # 6

#%' # %%

# 6 % %# ' #

#% % % !

'%% %

' > # ##

% 6 #

% ## #' # 6 % # # 6

C # 6 6

# # # #

% % '

P a g e | 5 '

% %

%# % %

% % 4

% 6 % ###

% '4

#'B 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. & !

4 :! ! 9 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

P a g e | 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.

* !

! !

5 .+- -0";0$-'('" '2($'('2/<!-21 .+--$,$$0-'('2 ';,,'('2 /<! -01 9 4 9 !

4 9 < ! .!

= 9 ! 7 >?' 4 6 %

P a g e | 7 %D

6 EF % # 6 G 6

! % % # 6 ' ' %D

6 EF # 6

%#% % D%#% %D%#%

;

%#%# ' : %D

6 EF % D

% 6 # % # 6

'# H %D 6 EF 6 6

% EF

% # ' * $H % 6 6 %%

6 # D # '+

# 6

'I 6

% %# % %

% %D

6 EF' *

6 EF %

% 6 %% % 6 %D EF' %

% %D EF 6 % %

% 6

# % % %'? 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.

*9 9

! ! 8 .!! 9

.!!

P a g e | 8 / 1 5

-! / 1 5

9 !

! / 1 5

/ 91 5

/91 5

.! /9 1 5

*9 @ @

- !

.!*

6 /9 1 5

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 $ Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No