Kulwant Kaur v. State Of Punjab

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 11.03.2026 KULWANT KAUR ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB ... RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Ms. Meena, Advocate for Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Parneet Singh Pandher, Assistant A.G.Punjab. Mr. Manas Bhatia, Advocate for Mr. Vaibhav Narang, Advocate for the complainant. H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral) 1.

This petition has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 15 dated 17.03.2023 under Sections 307, 452,148,149 of IPC 1860 (offfence under Sections 302,449,201,34 of IPC, 1860 added later on and offence under Sections 452,148,149 of IPC, 1860(deleted later on) registered at Police Station, Kacha Pacca, District Tarn Taran.

2.

The case of the prosecution is that on 16.03.2023 at about 11:00 A.M., the petitioner, along with her son namely Karanpal Singh and her mother Sukhwinder Kaur, came on a motorcycle along with 4-5 unidentified persons who were armed with kirch and datar. Thereafter, upon reaching the spot, Sukhwinder Kaur raised a lalkara, Karanpal Singh took out a kirch and inflicted a blow on the neck of his grandmother, Balwinder Kaur and the

-2petitioner also allegedly inflicted a kirch blow in the stomach of Baljinder Kaur, who later on succumbed to the injuries sustained by her. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the petitioner was not present at the spot of occurrence. He further submits that there is an unexplained delay of one day in lodging the FIR. He further submits that nothing has been recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 18.03.2023 and prays for grant of regular bail. 4.

On the other hand ld. State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner for the grant of regular bail. He has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner in the Court today and the same is taken on record. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last 02 years 11 months and 17 days and is not involved in any other case and out of total 22 cited prosecution witnesses only 09 have been examined so far.

5.

Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has committed the heinous offence and he is not entitled for grant of regular bail.

6.

I have heard the submissions made by the parties and gone through the record.

7.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last 02 year 11 months and 17 days; the petitioner is not involved in any other case; out of total 22 cited prosecution witnesses 09 witnesses have been examined so far; and the

-3trial is likely to take a considerable time to conclude. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by further incarceration of the petitioner. Hence, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial.

8.

Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on her furnishing requisite bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

9.

Nothing discussed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

10.

It is clarified that if while on bail so granted through the instant order, the petitioner is found indulging in any other criminal case/activity, it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of her bail. 11.

Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. 11.03.2026 (H.S.GREWAL) renu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No