Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Regular Bail to Woman Accused in Murder Case, Cites Prolonged Custody, Delayed Trial and Section 480 BNSS

Case Name: Jaspreet Kaur alias Preeti v. State of Punjab

Date of Judgment: 03 July 2026

Citation: CRM-M No. 32464 of 2026

Bench: Justice Sumeet Goel

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that continued detention of an undertrial accused was not justified where the investigation had concluded, the charges had already been framed, none of the 22 prosecution witnesses had been examined, and there was no material indicating that the accused was likely to abscond or interfere with the prosecution evidence.

The Court further held that the petitioner’s status as a 48-year-old woman required specific consideration under the proviso to Section 480(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The provision, which is materially similar to the proviso to Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, permits courts to adopt a sensitive and welfare-oriented approach while deciding the bail application of a woman accused.

Emphasising that an accused remains presumed innocent until proven guilty, the Court observed that the seriousness of an offence cannot by itself justify indefinite pre-trial incarceration when the prosecution is unable to ensure a reasonably speedy trial.

Summary: The petitioner approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking regular bail in an FIR registered at Police Station Dharamkot, District Moga, under Sections 109, 118(1), 115(2), 190 and 191(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. During the hearing, it was clarified that Section 103(1) of the BNS, corresponding to the offence of murder, had inadvertently not been mentioned in the headnote and prayer clause of the petition. The Court permitted the petition to be treated as also concerning the offence under Section 103 of the BNS.

According to the prosecution, an earlier altercation had taken place between the complainant and the petitioner. A few days later, several accused persons allegedly arrived outside the complainant’s house while armed with swords, double-edged swords and an iron rod. During the ensuing assault, the complainant and his brother Baljit Singh sustained injuries. Baljit Singh allegedly suffered a serious head injury and subsequently died. The petitioner was accused of participating in the assault by beating and kicking the injured persons after they had fallen to the ground.

The petitioner contended that she had been in custody since 11 November 2025, had no previous criminal record and had not been assigned any specific weapon injury or direct role in causing the fatal injury. It was argued that she had been implicated because of the earlier altercation with the complainant. Her counsel also submitted that her husband was already in custody and that there was no other person available to take care of the household and family members.

The State opposed the bail application on the ground that the allegations were serious and arose from an incident that resulted in the death of Baljit Singh.

The High Court noted that the petitioner had been arrested on 11 November 2025, the police report had been presented on 26 December 2025 and charges had been framed on 10 April 2026. Although the prosecution had cited 22 witnesses, none had been examined by the date of the bail hearing. The petitioner had already undergone approximately seven months and twenty days of incarceration and was not shown to be involved in any other criminal case.

The Court relied upon the Supreme Court’s ruling in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, which reaffirmed that the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 applies irrespective of the seriousness of the alleged offence. The judgment also reiterated that a person awaiting trial is an accused and not a convict and continues to enjoy the presumption of innocence.

The Court also referred to Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and its earlier decision in Ravinder Kaur v. State of Punjab. It observed that the proviso relating to women under Section 480 of the BNSS is a welfare-oriented provision that must receive due consideration while deciding bail, although it does not mean that bail must automatically be granted to every woman accused.

Considering the duration of custody, the absence of progress in the trial, the completion of investigation, the petitioner’s clean antecedents and the lack of material suggesting a risk of absconding or evidence tampering, the Court concluded that her further detention as an undertrial was unwarranted.

Decision: The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the petition and ordered the petitioner’s release on regular bail, subject to her furnishing the required bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court or Duty Magistrate.