IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

214 Reserved on: 11.12.2025 Pronounced on: 15.12.2025 Uploaded on: 15.12.2025 SUKHVINDER SINGH PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Mr. Simranjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Bareen Pratap Singh, AAG Punjab.

***

Shalini Singh Nagpal, J. (Oral)

1. Petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No.152 dated 29.11.2021 under Sections 340-B, 34 IPC, Police Station Shambu, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala. This is the third petition for regular bail.

2. On 21.11.2021, complainant Harnek Singh reported to the police that his daughter Sonia Devi was married with Sukhwinder Singh on 27.06.2021. Despite sufficient dowry given at the time of marriage, Sukhwinder Singh and his family members taunted her for not bringing car, due to which she started remaining mentally upset. On 12.10.2021, the victim visited her parental home and informed him about the demand of car. He assured the petitioner, who came along with his daughter, that the demand would be fulfilled and thereafter, they returned on 20.10.2021. On 29.11.2021, complainant made call to his daughter which the petitioner attended and he informed that Sonia Devi had ended her life by hanging herself with a fan.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was in custody for the last four years. No specific allegations were levelled against the petitioner in the FIR. Co-accused Manjit Kaur and Gurmeet Kaur had already been allowed regular bail by this Court on 28.03.2023 and 30.01.2023. Neither there were any allegations of torture nor the post- mortem report reflected any injuries. It has been argued that considering the long period of custody, the petition for bail deserved to be allowed.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for regular bail arguing that dowry death of petitioner’s wife Sonia Devi occurred within 5-6 months of marriage. She further submits that out of 14 prosecution witnesses, 13 had been examined and only the Investigating Officer was left to be examined. The trial was at fag end and was to conclude soon.

5. This is the fourth application of the petitioner. The second application for regular bail was dismissed on 16.01.2024 observing thus:

“…Keeping in view the nature of the allegations, which have been levelled against the petitioner, showing that there was a specific demand of a car by the petitioner and the victim was mentally upset because of that, due to which she had committed suicide, the quantum of sentence which the conviction may entail and the attendant facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner does not deserve to be given concession of regular bail. Hence, the petition stands dismissed...”

6. The third bail application was dismissed as not pressed on 7. Long custody, in itself would be a ground for bail where conclusion of trial is not in sight. In our case however, though petitioner is in custody for the last four years, trial is at fag end and is to be concluded soon. Considering the grounds for dismissal of the second bail application, no fresh ground arises for release of the petitioner on regular bail. The petition is accordingly dismissed.

8. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL)

JUDGE

HS.CHAUHAN