IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

208 *****

CRM-M No.60995 of 2025 Date of decision : 11.2.2026 Date of uploading : 11.2.2026 Premwati ………….Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …….Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Baljinder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner Ms. Priyanka Sadar, Senior DAG, Haryana Mr. Ankit Yadav, Advocate, for the complainant ---

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

1. Present second 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 FIR No.625 dated 12.8.2019 under Sections 302, 201, 120-B and 34 of the IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Palwal.

2. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present petition by the petitioner) is as follows:-

‘TO, SHO Officer, Police Station Sadar Palwal, sir, my name is Bir Singh, son of Dulhe Ram, a resident of village Allika, Tehsil Palwal, District Palwal. My wife, Bishandevi, went to sleep at around 11 am. We woke up at around 4 am and found her missing from her bed. We tried to look for her but could not find her anywhere. Around 9 pm, a neighbor told us that they saw someone's hand lying in the garbage. This entire incident occurred at the old school. The neighbor said she had come to tie her buffalo as usual. Bishandevi never went anywhere in the morning or at night. We have no quarrels or animosities with anyone in our village. We do not suspect anyone. Some unknown person murdered my wife. I request you to take the strictest possible action. Thanks SD- BIRSINGH Bir Singh

12.08.19.’

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 8.10.2019. Learned counsel has further submitted that the case in hand is not an eye-witness account but is based on disclosure statement. Learned counsel has further argued that that the petitioner is a lady who has suffered incarceration for more than 6 years and the trial is yet to conclude. Learned counsel has further argued that the premise of the prosecution case is illicit relationship of the petitioner with co-accused Narender but the husband of the petitioner, while deposing as a prosecution witness, has denied any illicit relationship. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised 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 custody certificate dated 10.2.2026 in Court, which is taken on record.

4.1 Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the grant of bail on the ground that there are direct and serious allegations and in case the petitioner is extended the concession of regular bail, there is all the likelihood of the petitioner to flee from the process of justice and to interfere with the remaining prosecution witnesses.

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

6. The petitioner was arrested on 8.10.2019 and stated to be in continuous custody since then. Upon culmination of investigation, challan was prepared on 21.1.2019 and subsequently filed, wherein total 27 prosecution witnesses have been cited. It is not in dispute that 16 witnesses already stand examined as also the fact that all private prosecution witnesses stand examined. The rival contentions raised by learned counsel give rise to debatable issues which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.

6.1 The petitioner is a lady aged about 34 years (As per memo of parties appended with the petition), hence, bail petiti