Manjinder Singh v. State Of Punjab
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH (206-1) CRM-M-15372-2026 Date of Decision: 29.04.2026 MANJINDER SINGH ......Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH
Present:
Mr. Vikas Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ekom Pal Sagoo, AAG, Punjab.
**** KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL) 1.
The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 of BNSS has been invoked for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 53 dated 02.03.2020 under Section 304-B and 120-B of IPC, registered at Police Station Jhabal, District Tarn Taran (Annexure P-1). 2.
The translated version of the FIR is reproduced below:- ""Statement of Gurbaksh Singh, son of Joginder Singh, resident of Raja Sasi Ward No.07, District Amritsar, aged about 58 years, M.No.95328-xxxx. It is stated that I am resident of above mentioned address and used to do labour work. I am having two sons and one daughter. That my daughter xxxx aged about 25 years is youngest whose marriage got solemnized on dated15.02.2016 with Kirpal Singh son of Baaj Singh, resident of village Thattgarh. That my daughter given birth to one son who is aged about 2 years.
That at the time of marriage of my daughter we have already spent huge amount beyond my capacity and have given sufficient dowry articles as istridhan which includes one Alto Car, AC, LCD, Washing Machine, Almirah and other household articles as istridhan but my daughter used to disclose to me after coming to our house that her in-laws family members used to demand the big car Swift from her but since I am a poor person as such I could not fulfill the demand of my daughter and after making her understand used to sent her back to her matrimonial house. That my daughter disclosed to me that her father-in-law Baaj Singh, husband Kirpal Singh, brother-in-law Jassa Singh son of Baaj Singh, Pinda son of Baaj Singh, sister-in-law (Jethani) Rano wife of Jaspal Singh alias Jassa used to cause harassment to her for bringing the car.
the Panchayat of village Thattgarh in order to persuading the in-laws' family members of my daughter but every time they used to sent us back after giving false assurances.
That about 6 months ago my daughter disclosed to me that her in-laws family members wanted to purchased Innova Car and asked her to bring one and half lakh rupees and I on the asking of my daughter gave her the entire amount but again after sometime the in-laws family members of my daughter xxxx started pressuring her for bringing Swift car and thereafter my daughter after coming to her house stated to me that she is having threat to her life from her in-laws family members and she does not want to go back to her matrimonial house as she is being harassed mentally but we all family members after persuading her dropped her back to her matrimonial house at village Thattgarh. That only 2 days has elapsed after leaving my daughter in her in-laws' house and on yesterday on dated 01.03.
2020 my daughter xxxx at about 06/06:30 pm called me and stated to me that she is being harassed by her in-laws' family members in connivance with each other and at about 07:00 pm my son-in-law Kirpal Singh called me on phone and stated that xxxx has hanged herself and we were taking her to Gurunanak Dev Hospital Amritsar but she has already expired. Thereafter, I along with my younger son Gurmeet Singh and other family members went to Gurunanak Dev Hospital Amritsar where Kirpal Singh, Jassa Singh, Pinda, Rano and along with them 2-3 unidentified person after leaving the dead body of our daughter ran away in the car. That we gave the information to the police chowki at the Hospital.
That my daughter xxxx has been killed by strangulation by her in-laws family members which includes Baaj Singh (father-in-law), Kirpal Singh (Husband) Jassa Singh (brother-in-law), Pinda (brother-in-law) Rano (sister-in-law) due to not brining Swift car in the dowry. That today you met me in the Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar as such the statement has been got recorded action may kindly be taken. Statement has been read over which is admitted to be true, Sd/- Gurbaksh Singh, attested by Sd/- Vipan Kumar, ASI, PS, JHABAL."
3.
Status report by way of affidavit of Sukhbir Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division Tarn Taran, District Tarn Taran has been filed by the State, which is taken on record. A copy thereof has been furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, being the father-in-law of the deceased, has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of the statement made by the father of the deceased. It is submitted that the marriage between the deceased and Kirpal Singh, son of the petitioner, was solemnized on 15.02.2016 and during the subsistence
of the marriage no matrimonial complaint was ever lodged against the petitioner or her family members. Furthermore, even the FIR in the instant case was lodged one day after the unfortunate occurrence. Learned counsel contends that neither have any specific allegations been attributed to the petitioner regarding any act of cruelty or demand of dowry which could have led the deceased to commit suicide, nor is there any material on record that points towards the commission of the any offence by the petitioner. It is further contended that all the material witnesses viz. the family members of the deceased, have not supported the case of the prosecution in their depositions before the learned Trial Court, and they were declared hostile. Reliance in this regard is placed upon their depositions annexed as Annexures P-2 to P-5.
The complainant has also passed away during the pendency of the trial. Moreover, similarly placed co-accused namely Raj Kaur (mother-in-law of the deceased) has already been granted regular bail by this Court on 12.03.2026 in CRM-M-70514-2025. It is also submitted that the 63 year old petitioner has already undergone an actual custody of 07 months and 29 days and has clean antecedents. 5.
Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He states that the petitioner was actively involved in the commission of the offence. He has filed custody certificate in Court today and the same is taken on record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone an actual custody of 07 months and 29 days. The learned State counsel, on instructions from official concerned, submits that in the present case, charges were framed on 07.07.2025 and out of total 16 prosecution witnesses, 06 have been examined till date. He submits that in view of the serious allegations against
the petitioner, he is not entitled to the concession of regular bail. 6.
Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
! "
#
"
"
"
" $%!
"
&
'
(
)
"
* +, '
!
!
"
#
-
!
"
.( .( /./0 1 " .2 32
4
"
"
07 months and 29 days %
6
"
"
"
"
" "
" 7
3.
"
7
"
4 ' "
6
" "
"
7 " 7
" 4
" '
" 7
"
8 /3 '
% " "
' #
"
"
9 4
:" * :, ' ! " # $% &
'#" $ # (
8
"
"
; "
; &
' &<
"
#
&
' 4" 4
"
7
"
;
'
3/
%
"
'
3=
%
" 4
14.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE April 29, 2026 Ritika Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No