Lovepreet Kaur vs State Of Punjab

Kirti Singh, J

The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been invoked for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 88 dated 01.8.2025 under Section 108 of BNS, registered at Police Station Cheema, District Sangrur.

The translated version of the FIR is reproduced below:-

"Statement today Balkaran Singh alias Karan son of Jeet Singh son of Chand Singh resident of Khidda Patti Birkala police station Cheema district Sangrur. Age about 30 years mobile number 78891-71562 stated that I am a resident of the above address and I work as a labourer. My father died when I was young. Since I was alone at home, I started living in the house of my maternal uncle Labh Singh son of Jaggar Singh resident of Beechkala police station Cheema district Sangrur. Before my marriage, my maternal uncle had bought me a place in the village and built a house for me to live in. About 1 year ago, I got married with Lovepreet Kaur daughter of Ajaib Singh resident of Nagra district Sangrur. A few days after the marriage, my wife started fighting with me and used to tell me that I will not take care of your mother Ram Kaur, then I made my wife understand that we should take care of the well-being of our parents. But my wife refused to do so and told me that I will not live in your house. My brother-in-law Jagsir Singh son of Chand Singh resident of Tallewal district Barnala and aunt Harjit Kaur wife of Mahinder Singh resident of Dadda district Ludhiana have found a good house for me who will get my wife married to a richer family. So I called my aunt, mother-in-law (Massi Saas) Harjit Kaur and brother-in-law Jagsir Singh to my house and said that why are you destroying my house. Then my aunt, mother-in-law Harjit Kaur and brother-in-law Jagsir Singh started telling me that our daughter Lovepreet Kaur has made a big mistake by marrying you, so we will ruin you married life. Saying this, both of them forcibly took my Lovepreet Kaur with them to village Daddahoor. So after 1-2 days, I went to village Daddahoor with my relatives and requested to aunt, mother-in-law and brother-in-law and stated that why you are not letting my married life to run smoothly and I brought my wife Lovepreet Kaur to my house in Birkala, then as soon as she came, my wife started arguing with my mother, so I took them both separately and explained that they should not argue, but my wife Lovepreet Kaur kept interrupting my mother for minor issued without any reason. My mother Ram Kaur was very worried about this and kept telling me that Lovepreet Kaur will ruin her matrimonial life. Yesterday, on 31-07-2025, 1, my mother Ram Kaur and my wife Lovepreet Kaur were sitting after eating breakfast. At around 10:30 in the morning, my wife Lovepreet Kaur started telling my mother Ram Kaur that old lady, I cannot service you anymore, you should go to your brothers. Then my mother hugged me and started crying. Then I made my mother quiet and told her everything will be ok. Then my mother started telling me that I will keep aside from you to save your matrimonial life. I started crying and I started telling to my wife that mother is mother, you should not argue with her. Then my wife started talking loudly. At that moment, my mother went into the room and came out after 1-2 minutes and told me that I have taken a poison pills, so I am going away from you forever. I quickly laid my mother on the bed and quickly called my maternal uncle. After hearing the noise, the neighbours also gathered. I arranged for a ride and admitted my mother to the Civil Hospital Sunam. From the Civil Hospital Sunam, the doctor referred my mother to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, where during the treatment, today my mother Ram Kaur died. My mother Ram Kaur's dead body is lying in the mortuary of Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. My mother has ended her life because of my wife Lovepreet Kaur, aunt, mother¬in-law Harjit Kaur and Sadu Jagsir Singh. Take Legal action against my wife Lovepreet Kaur, D/o Ajaib Singh Resident of Nagra, District Sangrur and Sadu Jagsir Singh, son of Chand Singh, resident of Tallewal, district Barnala and Aunt mother in law Harjeet Kaur W/o Mahender Singh resident of Daddahoor, district Ludhiana. I along with my maternal uncle Labh Singh S/o Jaggar Singh resident of Beerk Kalan were coming to the police station for informing the police about the incident, however the police officials met on the way. I have recorded my statement, heard, read and is correct."

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is the daughter-in-law of the deceased and has been falsely implicated in the present case on the statement of the son of the deceased, on the allegations that the petitioner used to harass and quarrel with the deceased, because of which she committed suicide. It is submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are baseless, and that no direct or proximate act of abetment has been attributed to the petitioner. There is also no cogent evidence on record to corroborate the allegations levelled. Further, reference is made to the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda and others vs. State of Gujarat, passed in SLP(Crl.) No.7957 of 2024), whereby it was held that in order to bring home charges under Section 306 IPC (108 BNS), there must be intention and active aiding or abetment of the commission of suicide, to state that the ingredients of Section 108 of BNS are not made out in the present case against the petitioner, who has already undergone an actual custody of 09 months and 22 days. It is also submitted that two similarly placed co-accused namely Harjeet Kaur and Jagsir Singh have already been granted interim anticipatory bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur on 13.8.2025 and the complainant has already been examined before the learned trial Court.

Per contra, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner was actively involved in the commission of the offence. Learned State counsel has filed custody certificate in Court today and the same is taken on record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone an actual custody of 09 months and 22 days. The learned State counsel, on instructions from the investigating officer concerned, submits that in the present case, charges were framed on 10.2.2026 and out of total 11 prosecution witnesses, 01 has been examined and also 4 PWs have been given up till date. It is submitted that in view of the serious allegations against the petitioner, she is not entitled to the concession of regular bail.

Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

Reverting to the case in hand, it is borne out from the record that charges came to be framed on 10.2.2026. Yet, only 01 out of 11 cited prosecution witnesses has been examined. The pace of the proceedings, thus, indicates that the conclusion of trial is not imminent. The petitioner has already remained in actual custody for a period of 09 months and 22 days. It is also not disputed that she has no criminal antecedents and is not involved in any other case. The co-accused have already been granted interim anticipatory bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur.

While the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, and the culpability, if any, would be tested and determined on the touchstone of evidence during the course of trial, the parameters governing the grant of bail necessitate a balanced consideration of the nature of accusation, the stage of the trial, the antecedents of the accused, and the likelihood of her absconding or influencing the course of justice.

Presently, no material has been placed on record to suggest that the petitioner poses a flight risk or that her release would impede the fair conduct of the trial, particularly when the material witness stands examined.

Therefore, upon taking into account all the considerations stated hereinbefore, and without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case lest it may prejudice the trial, this Court is of the opinion that the continued detention of the petitioner, in the backdrop of the pace of the proceedings and the substantial period of incarceration already undergone, would not advance the cause of justice. The guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which includes the right to a speedy trial, obliges the Court to ensure that pre-trial incarceration does not assume a punitive character. The prolonged incarceration, without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future, would also run contrary to the settled legal principle that 'bail is the rule and jail is the exception', as reaffirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2018) 3 SCC 22.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed, and to ensure that the interests of justice are adequately safeguarded, the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail upon furnishing of adequate bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate, subject to the following terms and conditions:-

(i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

(ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s).

(iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which she is accused of, or for commission of which she is suspected.

(v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.

It is reiterated that the observations made in hereinabove are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail petition, and must not be construed as a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.