IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 23.09.2025 Maninder Singh ......Petitioner Vs.

State of Punjab ......Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present: Ms. Puja Chopra, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. J. S. Arora, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Satnam Singh Thakur, Advocate, for the complainant.

***

RAJESH BHARDWAJ , J. (ORAL)

1. Present second petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.258 dated 26.09.2019, under Sections 302, 34, 120-B of IPC, registered at Police Station Civil Line, District Patiala.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the present FIR has been got registered on the statement of complainant Sunny Singh that the petitioner was having illicit relations with another woman and, on account thereof, he used to subject his wife Poonam (sister of complainant) to cruelty and harassment. On 24.09.2019, the complainant received a telephonic call regarding the critical condition of his sister Poonam and her husband Maninder Singh, who had both been admitted to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. The complainant, along with his father, immediately reached Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, where they found that his sister Poonam had expired. The specific allegation against the petitioner is that he murdered his wife by inflicting injuries upon her. The petitioner approached the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, praying for grant of bail, however, finding no merit, the same was declined after hearing both the sides by Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala vide order dated 04.09.2023. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner earlier approached this Court by way of filing of CRM-M-25358-2024, however, the same was disposed of vide order dated 18.11.2024. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing of present second petition for grant of bail.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted before this Court that petitioner is the husband of the deceased. She submits that case of the prosecution is totally based on circumstantial evidence. She submits that prosecution has relied upon the two confessional statements of the petitioner and recovery of baseball bat. She submits that the occurrence in the present case did not take place in the matrimonial home, however, the incident occurred, outside the house i.e., in an open plot. She submits that since the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence, it is the settled mandate of law that the chain of circumstances must be established beyond reasonable doubt. The petitioner in the present case has been made a prime accused only being husband of the deceased. There is not credible evidence produced by the prosecution for proving its case beyond the reasonable doubt against the petitioner. She has submitted that now there are three accused in the present case out of which, two have already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 09.05.2022 and 23.11.2022 respectively and petitioner is behind the bars since the date of his arrest i.e. 30.09.2019. She submits that petitioner has virtually completed an incarceration of about 6 years. She lays emphasis on the custody of the petitioner and de hors the merits of the case. The petitioner has a fundamental rights of speedy trial which has been measurably defeated in the present case. She submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and the majority of the prosecution witnesses already stands examined, hence, he deserves to be granted bail.

4. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the contentions made by counsel for the petitioner and submits that petitioner does not deserve the concession to be granted bail.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel however, has opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He submits that the deceased in the present case is none other than the wife of the petitioner himself. He submits that the petitioner, in pursuance of a well-hat