Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Regular Bail to Woman Accused in Murder Conspiracy Case; Notes Abscondence and Seriousness of Allegations
Case Name: Pawanjeet Kaur @ Pawanjit Kaur @ Babbo v. State of Punjab and Another
Date of Judgment: 15 January 2026
Citation: CRM-M No.49630 of 2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that in cases involving serious allegations of conspiracy and homicidal death, regular bail cannot be granted when the accused was absconding for a prolonged period, has been declared a proclaimed person, and the allegations disclose active complicity. The Court held that gravity of offence, conduct of the accused, and likelihood of intimidation of witnesses are relevant considerations for denial of bail.
Summary: The petition was filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail in FIR No.71 dated 12.05.2022 registered at Police Station Majitha, District Amritsar Rural, under Sections 302, 120-B, 148 and 149 IPC. The FIR was lodged on the statement of the complainant Rajwinder Kaur, alleging that her brother Bagicha Singh was lured to Village Bhangwan on a pretext and was brutally assaulted, leading to his death.
Initially, allegations were levelled against Jasbir Singh and his family members. Upon inquiry and further investigation, it was revealed that the complainant had leased agricultural land to Jasbir Singh and that the present petitioner, along with her husband Kabal Singh and son Gurpreet Singh, had conspired to falsely implicate him by orchestrating the incident with the intention of grabbing the land. On the basis of supplementary statements, the petitioner was implicated as an accused.
The petitioner absconded during investigation and was declared a proclaimed person on 30.11.2024. She was arrested on 19.02.2025, after which investigation qua her was completed and a supplementary challan was presented.
The petitioner contended that she was falsely implicated, was not named as an assailant, that there was delay in lodging the FIR, and that there was no eye-witness to her alleged role. It was further argued that trial would take considerable time and her continued custody served no purpose.
The State opposed the bail plea, contending that there were specific allegations of conspiracy, that the petitioner had earlier absconded and was declared a proclaimed person, and that there was a likelihood of her intimidating witnesses or fleeing from justice if released on bail.
After considering the rival submissions, the Court held that the allegations disclose serious offences involving unlawful assembly and homicidal death. The Court took note of the petitioner’s conduct in absconding, the fact that trial had recently commenced, and the nature of punishment that conviction may entail. The Court concluded that the petitioner did not deserve the concession of bail at this stage.
Decision: The bail petition was dismissed. The Court clarified that observations made in the order shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.