219 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: October 30, 2025 Suman ….Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Manjeet Garhwal, Advocate for Mr. Sahil Choudhary, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.205 dated 11.04.2023, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 25, 54, 59 of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short ‘Arms Act’), registered at Police Station Mahesh Nagar, District Ambala.

2. The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that the petitioner, in collusion with the co-accused, namely, Ajay with whom she allegedly had illicit relations, hatched a criminal conspiracy, pursuant to which, on her instigation, the co-accused Ajay committed the murder of her husband, Lal Bachan.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody since 16.06.2023. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has iterated that prosecution evidence available against the petitioner is one of the circumstantial evidence only. Learned counsel has iterated that there is no evidence so as to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner is a lady aged 40 years with clean antecedents. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record the custody certificate dated

28.10.2025 in the Court today, which is taken on record.

5. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

6. The petitioner was arrested on 16.06.2023 whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 11.09.2023. It is not disputed before this Court that total 22 prosecution witnesses have been cited, out of which only 03 have been examined till date.

At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and anothers, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494, in which, it has been held as under:

“18. Criminals are not born out but made. The human potential in everyone is good and so, never write off any criminal as beyond redemption. This humanist fundamental is often missed when dealing with delinquents, juvenile and adult. Indeed, every saint has a past and every sinner a future. When a crime is committed, a variety of factors is responsible for making the offender commit the crime. Those factors may be social and economic, may be, the result of value erosion or parental neglect; may be, because of the stress of circumstances, or the manifestation of temptations in a milieu of affluence contrasted with indigence or other privations.

19. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime.

20. We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused; not a convict. The over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly, howsoever stringent the penal law ma