Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 98263
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sanjay Vashisth, J
GURBANS SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB – Respondent
CRM-M-31622-2026 (O&M)
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail
Act Referred
Code of Criminal Procedure: S.439
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: S.91, S.62, S.118(1), S.115(2)
Indian Penal Code: S.315, S.511, S.324, S.323
Headnote
(B) Bail - Period of Incarceration - Investigation Completed - When the investigation is complete and the trial is likely to take considerable time, keeping the accused behind bars for an indefinite period serves no useful purpose. (Para 7, 8)
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail considering the nature of injuries and the period of incarceration in a matrimonial dispute.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Impinder Singh Dhaliwal
For the Respondents: Gurpartap Singh
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of allegations and fir details regarding domestic violence and forced sex determination. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding fir delay, nature of injuries, and the gravity of the offense under bns. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. grant of bail based on the nature of injuries, period of incarceration, and trial duration. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. bail conditions and protective observations for the complainant's well-being. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
****
SANJAY VASHISTH, J.
1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, during the pendency of trial, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed hereunder:-
| Name of Petitioner(s) | FIR No. | Date | Section(s) | Police Station | District |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gurbans Singh, aged about 35 years | 049 | 20.04.2026 | 91, 62, 118(1), 115(2) of BNS [erstwhile sections 315, 511, 324, 323 of IPC] | Lakhewali | Sri Muktsar Sahib |
2. In the present case, allegations arise out of an incident that allegedly occurred on 14.04.2026 at about 4 P.M. and again on 15.04.2026 at about 8:00 A.M. Petitioner, who is the husband of the complainant-Joginder Kaur, is alleged to have physically assaulted her, pursuant to which present FIR was registered against him. Marriage between the petitioner and complainant was solemnized on 05.05.2019, and two daughters were born out of the said wedlock. Elder daughter is about five and a half years old, while younger daughter is about two years old. At the relevant time, complainant was pregnant of approximately three months. It is alleged that petitioner, after consuming liquor, would frequently quarrel with and physically assault the complainant. He allegedly persistently pressured her to undergo an ultrasound examination to ascertain the sex of the foetus, as he was unwilling to have another female child. On the day of the occurrence, petitioner allegedly caught hold of the complainant by her hair, banged her head against a wall, and repeatedly assaulted her with fists and kicks. It is further alleged that he caused injuries on her forearms with a knife/vegetable cutter. On the basis of the statement made by the complainant, present FIR came to be registered on 20.04.2026, i.e., after a delay of five days from the date of the alleged occurrence.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is an unexplained delay of five days in lodging the FIR, despite the alleged incident having taken place on 15.04.2026. It is further contended that although complainant sustained eleven injuries, but all of them are opined to be simple in nature. Thus, learned counsel prays for grant of regular bail to the petitioner.
4. In response, learned State counsel has produced the status report dated 01.08.2026, which is taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at the appropriate place on the file.
A copy thereof has been supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. Referring to the status report, learned State counsel submits that petitioner did not want a third female child and, therefore, repeatedly compelled the complainant to undergo an ultrasound examination for determination of sex of the foetus so that, in the event of a female foetus, pregnancy could be terminated. Since complainant refused to undergo such an illegal procedure, petitioner allegedly subjected her to severe physical assault and attacked her with a sharp-edged weapon, causing total eleven injuries.
However, learned State counsel is unable to dispute the fact that all the injuries suffered by the complainant, were declared simple in nature.
Nevertheless, it is submitted by learned State counsel that petitioner acted with the intention of preventing the child from being born alive, thereby attracting the provisions of Section 91 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. It is argued that since offence is grave and petitioner act
