Nagina Devi v. State Of Punjab

-1233+113

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND

HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:19.11.2025 NAGINA DEVI

...Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Himanshu Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.

MANISHA BATRA, J.

(Oral) CRM-32401-2025 Prayer in this application is for placing on record amended order dated 05.08.2025 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. CRM stands disposed of.

Main Case 1.

Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 175 dated 29.06.2025, registered under Sections 109, 331(6), 115(2), 324(4), 191(3) and 190 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS') at

-2Police Station Civil Lines, District Bathinda. 2.

Brief facts of the case relevant for the disposal of the present petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement recorded by the complainant Shiv Lal alleging therein that on 28.06.2025, the petitioner alongwith the co-accused had formed membership of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of common object thereof, attacked upon his family members and himself, had caused injuries to his wife Aruna Devi and also to his daughter Gaytri. Other members had also sustained injuries at the hands of the co-accused. The petitioner was arrested and is in custody since 02.07.2025. Investigation now stands completed and challan has been presented.

3.

It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that she has been falsely implicated in this case. The injuries which have been attributed to her are simple in nature, she is in custody since long. She is not required for further investigation. The trial will take considerable time to conclude since other accused are yet to be arrested. No useful purpose would be served by keeping her in custody anymore. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner deserves to be released on bail. 4.

Status report along with custody certificate has been filed by the respondent-State. Learned State counsel has argued that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, she is not entitled to get benefit of bail. It is, thus, argued that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also perused the material placed on record.

-36.

A perusal of the custody certificate shows that the petitioner is not involved in any other case. Investigation has since been completed and challan has been presented. The trial will take considerable time as no prosecution witness has been examined so far. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody anymore. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to her furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. However, it will be open for the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail in case the petitioner is found involved in any other subsequent case.

7.

It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case.

19.11.2025 (MANISHA BATRA) shruti JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No