Seema @ Siya Rani v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Decided on :02.07.2026 Seema @ Siya Rani . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

Present:

Mr. IPS Kohli, Advocate Mr. Sidharth Maini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

**** SANJAY VASHISTH , J. (Oral) 1.

Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 168 dated 27.11.2025, under Section 125, 308(5), 61(2), 324(4), 111 and 249(b) of BNS (corresponding Sections 120-B, 308, 34, 324, 107 read with 109 and 212 IPC) and Section 25 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Satnampura, District Kapurthala.

2.

On the statement of complainant-Daljit Singh @ Raju, aged about 47 years, FIR in the present case was registered, which reads as under:

" That I am a resident of the above mentioned address. I am engaged in agriculture work and also run my private business. That on 26.11.2025, at night, after taking diner, I alongwith my family members was present at my house in Village Darveshpur. That today, on 27.11.2025, at about 01:13 a.m., I suddenly heard that sound of gunshots. Upon hearing the same, I got up and saw through the window of my house that two unknown masked person, having pistols/revolvers in their hands, were firing towards my house. That the bullets struck the glass railing and windows

of the first floor of my house. Which, after firing, immediately fled away from the spot. Thereafter, I checked the CCTV Cameras and upon checking the footage, it was found that the said boys were roaming in front of m house on a motorcycle with their faces covered. Thereafter, they parked their motorcycle on the main gate road of the village and came on foot, and out of them, one person, immediately upon arriving, threw four pages inside my house on which Kala Rana Group 5 crore was written. Thereafter, both the said masked persons fired indiscriminately at my house with the pistols/revolvers held in their hands. I have no personal grudge or enmity with anyone. This act of firing at my house has been committed by some mischievous persons with the intention of extorting ransom from me. Therefore, the said unknown masked persons who carried out the firing be traced and legal action be taken against them. My statement has been recorded, read over to me, and having been admitted to be correct, I affix my signatures thereto. Sd/- Daljeet Singh."

From the allegations in the FIR, it emerges that a ransom demand of Rs. 5 crores was made by members of the Kala Rana gang, and in order to terrorize the complainant, several gunshots were fired at his house, which was also captured by the CCTV cameras installed at the premises.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a woman and is in custody since 24.12.2025 along with her two-year-old child. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner has been unnecessarily implicated in the present case, merely on account of the fact that her husband is one of the accused therein. Learned counsel also submits that there is no other

connecting evidence against the petitioner with respect to the alleged incident, nor is there any material showing her involvement in any overt act or in making any demand.

4.

Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the petitioner is involved in a serious offence forming part of an organized criminal activity, wherein active involvement of multiple accused persons is alleged. It is further submitted that the petitioner cannot seek parity or benefit merely on the ground of being a woman or on account of custodial circumstances, particularly when her involvement has surfaced during investigation. Accordingly, prays for dismissal of present petition.

On being asked by the Court, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner was receiving the ransom amount on behalf of her husband, and on that basis, she has been arrayed as an accused in the present case.

5.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the paper-book, along with the documents appended thereto.

6.

The nature of allegations appears to be surprising insofar as the implication of the petitioner in the present case is concerned. At this stage, this Court harbours serious doubt regarding the involvement of the petitioner unless the prosecution establishes a clear nexus indicating her active role in the alleged conspiracy and extortion of ransom amount. The said aspect is yet to be established by the prosecution during trial.

Till such time, petitioner cannot be compelled to remain in custody, particularly when she is a woman and is stated to be lodged in jail along with her two-year-old child. Continued incarceration of the child within the jail premises may have an adverse impact on his/her mental and overall development, which could affect his/her future prospects.

7.

Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to her furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case. 8.

Any of the discussion done and recorded hereabove, shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case. Therefore, trial Court is expected to decide the case by taking an independent view, on the basis of evidence available on record, as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. 9.

Petition stands disposed of.

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE 02.07.2026 Rashmi Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No