Honour Killing Double Murder: P&H High Court Refuses Bail Despite Prolonged Custody, Cites Gravity & Witness Intimidation Risk
Case Name: Chhinder Kumar @ Chindi @ Shindi v. State of Punjab
Date of Judgment: 25 February 2026
Citation: CRM-M-44170-2024
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that prolonged custody alone cannot justify grant of regular bail in cases involving grave offences such as double murder arising out of an alleged honour killing. Where prima facie material discloses participation in an unlawful assembly, allegations are serious, and key witnesses are yet to be examined, the discretionary relief of bail must be declined despite delay in trial.
Summary: The petitioner filed a second petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita seeking regular bail in FIR No.199 dated 17.10.2021 registered under Sections 302, 452, 364, 148 and 149 IPC at Police Station Nihal Singh Wala, District Moga . The earlier bail petition had been dismissed as withdrawn on 08.01.2024 without adjudication on merits .
As per the prosecution case, the deceased Rohtash Singh had solemnized a court marriage with Suman against her family’s wishes. Apprehending danger, the couple had taken shelter at the complainant’s house. On 17.10.2021, around 15–16 persons allegedly arrived in three vehicles, forcibly entered the house by scaling the wall, assaulted the couple, abducted them and fled. Subsequently, their dead bodies were found in village Sappan Wali, Tehsil Abohar, District Fazilka .
The petitioner was arrested on 05.11.2021 and the challan was presented on 31.01.2022 . It was argued on his behalf that no specific overt act was attributed to him and that he had been implicated on general allegations of accompanying the main accused. It was further contended that he had remained in custody for a substantial period and that only two out of 33 prosecution witnesses had been examined, reflecting slow progress of trial .
The State opposed the petition, submitting that the case involved a brutal double murder in the nature of honour killing, punishable with death or life imprisonment. It was contended that the petitioner was a member of the unlawful assembly which executed a pre-planned conspiracy and that release on bail could lead to intimidation of witnesses .
The Court extensively referred to principles governing successive bail petitions and the discretionary parameters for grant of bail, including the gravity of offence, prima facie evidence, likelihood of absconding, possibility of tampering with witnesses, and societal impact .
On merits, the Court observed that the allegations were grave and specific, indicating active participation as part of an unlawful assembly. Given the magnitude of the crime, the fact that several material witnesses were yet to be examined, and the serious nature of the offence, prolonged custody alone could not constitute a compelling ground for bail .
The Court further observed that offences of this nature strike at the root of public order and societal conscience. Grant of bail in such cases may undermine the gravity of the offence and embolden the accused .
Decision: The petition was dismissed. The trial Court was directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within one year, and to send periodic progress reports to the High Court .