Kajal v. State Of Haryana

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 19.05.2026 Kajal ..... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ..... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ *****

Present:

Mr. Baljeet Beniwal, Advocate and Mr. Ajay Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Diya Sodhi, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

***** RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.

1.

Present second petition has been filed praying for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.199, dated 13.12.2022, under Sections 302, 34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Bahin, District Palwal.

2.

Succinctly, the facts of the case are that FIR in the present case was got registered on the statement of complainant, namely, Bhuparam. It was alleged that the complainant married his daughter to one Dharmender about 06 years ago. It was alleged that his daughter was frequently subjected to assault and on account of the same, several written complaints have been filed at Police Station Bahin. It was alleged that on 12.12.2022, at about 05:00 P.M., sister-in-law (Nanad) of his daughter,

-2namely, Kajal (petitioner) along with her son, namely, Abhishek went to the fields in village Bhamrola Jogi. On the way, the petitioner told her nephew, namely, Himanshu, to call the daughter of the complainant in the fields. Thereafter, Pappi along with the nephew, namely, Himanshu reached the fields to meet her sister-in-law, where Dharmender and his nephew, namely, Abhishek along with his friends, namely, Lav, Amit and Rajender were already present there. During scuffle, the abovesaid persons started beating Pappi and strangulated her with her scarf (chunari), however, she tried hard to save her life but could not succeed. After seeing Pappi being beaten, Himanshu ran towards the village and informed about the incident to his mother.

Thereafter his mother called the police and hence, the request was made to take legal action against all the accused persons. On the basis of the same, the FIR was registered. On registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. Resultantly, the petitioner was arrested on 01.03.2025. On completion of the investigation, the challan was presented and on framing of charges, the trial commenced. The petitioner approached the Court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Palwal praying for the grant of regular bail. However, after hearing both the sides and finding no merit in the same, the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Palwal dismissed the bail application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 14.11.2025.

Being aggrieved, the petitioner earlier approached this Court praying for the grant of regular bail by way of filing CRM-M-48698-2025, however the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 05.09.2025. Hence being aggrieved, the petitioner is again before this Court praying for grant of regular bail by way of filing the present second petition.

-33.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has submitted that the main accused in the present case is the co-accused, namely, Dharmender, who have been alleged to have strangulated his wife, namely, Pappi @ Prachi. He has submitted that the petitioner is the sister of the co-accused, namely, Dharmender. He has submitted that the petitioner was alleged to be the part of the conspiracy. He has submitted that there is no evidence to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. He has submitted that the petitioner is a married lady, who has one child. He has submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents as she has never been involved in any other case. He has submitted that the petitioner is behind bars from last more than 01 year and the material witnesses already stand examined. He has submitted that in the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner deserves to be granted regular bail.

4.

Status report dated 15.05.2026 by way of an affidavit of Rattandeep Bali, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hathin, District Palwal on behalf of the respondent-State along with annexures has been filed by learned State counsel today in the Court, which is taken on record. Copy thereof has been supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner. 5.

Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. She has submitted that the petitioner has played an active role in the commission of offence. She has submitted that it is the petitioner, who had sent the nephew, namely, Himanshu, to bring the deceased, namely, Pappi @ Prachi to the fields and on calling her, she was strangulated to death by the petitioner and co-

-4accused, Dharmender. She, on instructions, has submitted that out of total 28 prosecution witnesses, 09 witnesses have been examined so far. She has submitted that the petitioner is the main conspirator and thus, she does not deserve the concession of bail. She has produced custody certificate of the petitioner today in the Court, which is taken on record. 6.

Heard.

7.

After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that the petitioner is the married sister-in-law of the deceased. The allegations of strangulation are qua the co-accused, namely, Dharmender. The petitioner was arrested in the present case on 01.03.2025. Custody certificate produced would show that the petitioner has suffered an incarceration of 01 year, 02 months and 18 days as on 18.05.2026. It further reflects that the petitioner is not involved in any other case. Out of total 28 prosecution witnesses, 09 witnesses have been examined so far.

8.

The veracity of the allegations would be assessed only after the conclusion of the trial and on the appreciation of evidence to be led by both the parties before the trial Court. This Court would refrain itself from commenting anything on the merits of the case. The trial of the case will take sufficient long time.

9.

Keeping in view the arguments raised by both the sides and perusing the record, this Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the petitioner succeeds in making out a case for grant of regular bail to the petitioner.

10.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on her furnishing bail/surety bonds to the

-5satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. 11.

Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the cases.

(RAJESH BHARDWAJ) 19.05.2026 JUDGE rittu Whether Speaking/Reasoned :

Yes/No Whether Reportable :

Yes/No