Krishna v. State Of Haryana And Another
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH (287)
Date of decision: 26.11.2025 Date of uploading: 26.11.2025 Krishna ....Petitioner V/s ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present:
Mr. Aashish Kumar, Advocate for the appellant.
!"# ***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) 1.
The appellant has preferred the p
" $%#& '( )" * "+,-.$# /#/0#/## " * " .$1./##/2#/3 ,4' " .%#&%!& '( )" 4 " ) "
! " # ! $ #
%&!'"!(()!''
# *(+%&&,''( - "('))**"&" .
P a g e | 2 / # - ! 0 1
! # 2
%,
+
" 3 ,
5 !6 . 5"
* " +,- 6 5" "
" /7/0#/##5" " "" *" "
! " " "%'-&* "3""
5" " * ! * " "3""
5 " "
.. 1 "
* * )
* $ 5 " *
!" " ! * "( 5 " ! * '- " " ! "
"3""
"
5 " ! * "3""
P a g e | 3
" ! * "
*"! 8 * 5 " " " "
" " #9#/#9 ' "
" 9 , ! " ! !
! *" " 1 , "
"/7/0#/## "
./#/#.)#$"
!*" "
!*: * ! , "
" +,-3" : 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: &,! !
!
71
!
! 0
1
5 !
1
8
1 ! &*!
1
1
2
(&
P a g e | 4
!2
(&
!6 ) ! " ! ** * " " ) ' ! !" ;
" * * *
" *" ";
" "
! " *!* * * 1 The appellant is a lady aged about 31 years (as per memo of parties appended with the appeal), hence, bail plea 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-M11503-2024 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 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
P a g e | 5 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."
" " #9#/#9 * " "" . . 1 + "
" " * !! +,-(" Suffice to say, the further detention of the appellant in custody is not required in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7.
In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. Appellant is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the appellant shall remain bound by the following conditions:- (i) The appellant shall not mis-use the liberty granted. (ii) The appellant shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.
P a g e | 6 (iii) The appellant shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.
(iv) The appellant shall not commit any offence while on bail.
(v) The appellant shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.
(vi) The appellant shall give his cell phone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
(vii) The appellant shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.
8.
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 appellant.
9.
Ordered accordingly.
10.
Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
11.
Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 26.11.2025 91
Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes/No Whether reportable:
Yes/No