214 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Date of decision: 13.01.2026

JASWANT KAUR ...PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

Present: Mr. Rhythem Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Nitin Sachdeva, Advocate for the complainant.

****

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.109, dated 21.12.2023, under Sections 302,

323, 34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Jodhan, District Ludhiana Rural.

2. Succinctly the facts of the case is that the FIR was lodged on the statement of the complainant, namely, Gurmeet Kaur. It was alleged that her husband Shingara Singh was retired from Indian Army and was employed in the Punjab Police. They had dispute with their neighbours on account of blockage of the drainage being done by them. On 21.12.2023, at about 11:00 AM, ASI Balwinder Singh had come to the village to investigate the complaint filed against them by Jagdish Singh @ Pinku. She and her husband went out of the house into the street. Jagdish Singh @ Pinku and Jaswant Kaur got enraged and the dispute took place. Jagdish Singh @ Pinku brought an iron rod whereas Jaswant Kaur (present petitioner) brought a stick. Jagdish Singh @ Pinku hit her husband Shingara Singh on the head with intention to kill him. On receiving the

same, he collapsed. In the meantime, Jaswant Kaur hit her husband on the head with the stick which was in her hand. Thereafter, she gave 4 to 5 blows of the same when complainant was lying on the ground. They shifted Shingara Singh to the hospital where he was declared death. The request was made to take legal action against the accused persons. On the registration of the FIR, investigation commenced. The injured-complainant was medico legally examined and postmortem of the dead body was conducted. The supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded on 24.12.2023. The petitioner was arrested on 27.12.2023.. On completion of the investigation, the challan was presented. On framing of charges, trial commenced. He approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana for grant of bail. However, after hearing both the sides and finding no merit in the same, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana declined the bail application vide order dated 23.05.2024. Thus, the petitioner is before this Court praying for the grant of bail by way of filing the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner and whole family has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the petitioner and the complainant are neighbourers. He further submits that petitioner is alleged to have inflicted a blow with a stick upon the complainant. However, there are no allegation that the petitioner had given any injuries to the deceased. He further submits that the injuries allegedly given by the petitioner to the complainant were found to be simple in nature. He further submits that the supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded after 03 days of the occurrence and in a due deliberately manner, the petitioner was alleged to have caught hold the deceased. He further submits that petitioner has no criminal antecedents and she is behind bars since 27.12.2023. Thus, in the facts and circumstances, the petitioner deserves to be granted regular bail.

4. Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail application on the ground that the petitioner and co-accused had common intention to kill the deceased and she had played an active role. He further submits that she was duly armed with the stick and caused injury to the complainant and one of injuries was declared to be grievous. He further submits that the petitioner even caught hold of the deceased. He further submits that the complicity of the petitioner was also captured in CCTV footage. Thus, she does not deserve t