Payal v. State Of Punjab

- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 19.11.2025 PAYAL . . . Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB . . . Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHIVIR SINGH RATHOR PRESENT: Mr. M.S. Dua, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rahul Jindal, AAG Punjab.

**** YASHIVIR SINGH RATHOR , J. (Oral) 1.

Present petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.253 dated 08.08.2025, under Sections 109, 118(1), 115(2), 126, 351(3) and 61(2) of BNS, 2023, registered at Police Station City Hoshiarpur, District Hoshiarpur.

2.

The present case was registered on the basis of statement given to the Police by Javed Akhtar, with the allegation that he is a barber and was married with Payal (petitioner) and they have one son namely Imran Akhter. Due to matrimonial dispute with his wife, one case is pending in the Court. On 26.07.2025, he was going to meet his son on his motorcycle at the house of his in-law's situated at Mohalla Prem Garh. At about 9:30/10:00 P.M., when he reached near Fire Brigade Office, Yadwinder @ Jatin and Saurav were standing on the road and on seeing him, Yadwinder raised a lalkara the he be not spared today and they intercepted him. However, he managed to

- 2 - escape with great difficulty and at the time, Yadwinder and Sourav got down from their motorcycle and started arguing with him. In the meanwhile, petitioner-Payal also reached there and joined them and started arguing with him and she proclaimed that today he should be taught a lesson. Payal caught hold of him from his arm, while Yadwinder took out his Khanda and gave a blow on the left side of his forehead with an intention to kill him. Thereafter, he hit Khanada blow second time on the right side of his head. Sourav also brought his Khanda and hit it with reverse side on his right ear. Thereafter, Yadwinder @ Jatin gave two blows from reverse side of Khanda, which hit on his back and left elbow. Yadwinder gave khanda blow on his left foot and again with reverse side on his left thigh and blood started oozing profusely.

Payal kicked in his abdomen and proclaimed that in case, he came between her and Yadwinder, he will have to face serious consequences. He cried for help and people started gathering at the spot and assailants ran away from the spot. The matter was investigated and petitioner was arrested on 08.08.2025.

3.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner has been falsely implicated due to previous matrimonial dispute between her and the complainant. She never caused any injuries to the petitioner. Learned counsel further contended that co-accused namely Yadwinder @ Jatin has been released on anticipatory bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.11.2025 in CRM-M-56935-2025, while co-accused Sourav was released on anticipatory bail by this Court on a better footing. The case

- 3 - of the petitioner is as no injury is attributed to her. Learned counsel next contended that no injury has been declared to be dangerous to life and victim has suffered simple injuries only. Petitioner is in custody since 08.08.2025. The trial is likely to take a long time to conclude and further detention of the petitioner is not required and she may be released on bail. 5.

On the other hand, learned State Counsel has opposed the bail and argued that petitioner has committed heinous offence and in view of the gravity of the offence, petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail. 6.

Petitioner is in custody since 08.08.2025. The victim has suffered simple injuries. Only one kick blow in the abdomen, which is also simple in nature and is attributed to petitioner. Co-accused Yadwinder and Sourav have already been released on anticipatory bail and case of petitioner is on a better footing. The investigation and trial is likely to take a long time to conclude and further detention of the petitioner is thus not required and she deserves to be released on bail.

7.

Having regard to the aforesaid factual position, but without commenting anything upon the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court concerned, on usual terms and conditions.

(YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) JUDGE November 19, 2025 Vishal Vardhan Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No