Jaskaran Singh v. State Of Punjab

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 02.12.2025 Jaskaran Singh .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab ..... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ ***** Present :- Mr. Narinder S. Lucky, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amit Kumar Goel, AAG, Punjab.

**** RAJESH BHARDWAJ , J. (Oral) 1.

Present petition has been filed praying for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.72, dated 22.06.2024, under Sections 302 & 34 of IPC (Setion 120-B IPC added later on and Section 34 IPC deleted), registered at Police Station Nakodar Sadar, District Jalandhar.

2.

Succinctly the facts of the case are that FIR in the present case was got registered on the statement of complainant, namely, Raj Kumar. It was alleged that his sister-in-law, namely, Rajwinder Kaur, who was of the age of 35 years, married 09 years ago to Amrik Singh. However, they did not have any issue out of their marriage. From beginning there was dispute in the marriage of his sister-in-law with her

-2husband, namely, Amrik Singh, mother-in-law, namely, Balwinder Kaur and brother-in-law, namely, Jaskaran Singh @ Jassa (petitioner). Though time and again, the efforts were made to resolve their dispute by way of an amicable settlement, however the same did not give any result. On 20.06.2024, his sister-in-law, Rajwinder Kaur had come to her parental home and apprised her parents regarding the ill treatment being given to her by her in-laws. She thereafter returned to her matrimonial home. On 22.06.2024, at about 6:00 a.m., the husband of his sister-in-law, Amrik Singh called his wife, namely, Amarjit Kaur and informed that Rajwinder Kaur was not responding and they were taking her to hospital. On receiving the information, they reached the village Talwandi Salem.

On reaching there, they found the dead body of his sister-in-law, Rajwinder Kaur. Her in-laws failed to give any satisfactory answer and it was alleged that Amrik Singh in connivance with his mother, Balwinder Kaur and brother, Jaskaran Singh @ Jassa (petitioner) had committed the murder of his sister-in-law by strangulating her. The request was made to take legal action against all the accused. On registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. The petitioner was arrested on 27.06.2024. The postmortem of the dead body was conducted and on completion of the investigation, the challan was presented. On framing of the charges, the trial commenced. The petitioner approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar praying for the grant of bail.

However, after hearing both the sides and finding no merit in the same, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar declined the petition filed by the petitioner vide order dated 17.09.2025.

-3petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petition praying for the grant of regular bail.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner has been falsely roped in the present case only being the brother-in-law, i.e. Devar of the deceased. He has submitted that the deceased got married about 09 years ago and at that time, the petitioner was 15 years of age and at present, he is of 24 years. He has submitted that the allegations made against the petitioner is that the husband of the deceased in conspiracy with the petitioner and his mother had eliminated the deceased. He has submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and he is behind bars since the date of his arrest, i.e. 27.06.2024. He has further submitted that co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Balwinder Kaur has already been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 30.07.2025 passed in CRM-M-9005-2025 and thus, case of the petitioner is at par with that of the co-accused. He has submitted that in the facts and circumstances, the petitioner deserves to be granted bail.

4.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State however has opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He, on instructions, has submitted that the murder in the present case has taken place in the matrimonial home. He has submitted that there was a matrimonial discord since beginning as the deceased had no issue out of the marriage. He has submitted that as per the postmortem report, the death in the present case has taken place due to asphyxia due to constriction of neck as a result of strangulation. He, on instructions has

-4submitted that out of 21 prosecution witnesses, only 02 witnesses have been partially examined till date. He has produced custody certificate of the petitioner today in the Court and the same is taken on record. He has endorsed the fact that co-accused, namely, Balwinder Kaur has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 30.07.2025 passed in CRM-M-9005-2025.

5.

Heard.

6.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that the deceased was married about 09 years ago before the date of occurrence. The petitioner before this Court is the brother-in-law of the deceased. The allegations made against the petitioner are that the husband of the deceased in conspiracy with the petitioner and his mother had eliminated the deceased. Custody certificate produced would show that the petitioner has completed incarceration of 01 year, 05 months and 03 days as on 01.12.2025. It further shows that the petitioner is not involved in any other case of the similar nature and punished under one jail offence. Out of total 21 prosecution witnesses, only 02 witnesses have been partially examined till date. Co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Balwinder Kaur, has already been granted bail by this Court. 7.

The veracity of the allegations would be assessed only after the conclusion of the trial and on the appreciation of evidence to be led by both the parties before the trial Court.

8.

This Court would refrain itself from commenting anything on the merits of the case. Keeping in view the arguments raised by both the sides and perusing the record, the Court is of the opinion that learned

-5counsel for the petitioner succeeds in making out a case for the grant of bail. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

(RAJESH BHARDWAJ) 02.12.2025 JUDGE rittu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No