Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRM-M/35061/2026 of MANJIT KAUR ALIAS BALJIT KAUR Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 27 August 2026
2222000022226666 ((((OOOO&&&&MMMM)))) 2222 ₹ ₹2,00,000/-, out of which 1,00,000/- was paid to Manjit Kaur through bank draft and the balance was to be paid after six months. However, she did not appear to receive the second instalment and on two subsequent dates, refused to
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
REEMA SAINI
₹ ₹ 2,00,000/-, out of which 1,00,000/- was paid to Manjit Kaur through bank draft and the balance was to be paid after six months. However, she did not appear to receive the second instalment and on two subsequent dates, refused to accept the amount or make a statement, expressing her desire to return to the matrimonial home. Consequently, the learned Judge dismissed the divorce petition and ordered return of the first instalment and the matter remained pending. Before Diwali in 2025, Manjit Kaur submitted an application to the SSP, Mansa, which was forwarded to the DSP for inquiry. In December 2025, Kuldeep Singh @ Raja contacted the complainant regarding the application and along with other Nihang Singhs, visited his house. Thereafter, a Panchayat was convened, where Manjit Kaur was given another opportunity to resolve the dispute after tendering an apology. On 20.03.2026, an argument took place between the complainant and Manjit Kaur over a domestic matter, following which she created a ruckus and turned the complainant and his mother out of the house. On 23.03.2026, Kuldeep Singh @ Raja and his accomplices convened a Panchayat at a village Gurdwara in Budhlada, but no settlement was reached. Thereafter, Manjit Kaur’s brothers, Gurpreet Singh and Karnail Singh, abused and attempted to manhandle the complainant. On 24.03.2026, the complainant went to his house, where Manjit Kaur was present alone. The complainant, who was under the influence of alcohol, was offered lemon water by her , which he refused but when she insisted, he consumed it and shortly thereafter, vomited twice. He went to the hospital, where his sister was already undergoing treatment, and again vomited before losing consciousness. He was provided treatment, referred to another hospital, and was subsequently taken to another hospital by his family members. REEMA SAINI
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was mother of 3 years old child, in custody for the last three months. Investigation of the case was complete. There was no FSL report to substantiate the allegations in the FIR regarding administration of intoxicating or poisonous drink. Trial was likely to take long, therefore, petitioner deserved to be enlarged on regular bail.
4. Learned State counsel has filed status report by way of affidavit of Sikander Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division Budhlada, District Mansa, opposing the prayer for regular bail on the ground of serious nature of allegations.
5. The often invoked phrase ‘Bail is the rule and jail is the exception’ is not merely an empty statutory slogan flowing from the Cr.P.C. It is a constitutional principle flowing from Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution and the presumption of innocent which is the cornerstone of any civilised society governed by the rule of law. (Vide Syed Iftikhar Andrabi Vs. National Investigation agency 2026 SCC online SC 881).
6. Evidently, there is a matrimonial dispute between the parties. Petitioner is in custody w.e.f. 19.05.2026. She has a minor three years old daughter to look after. Concededly, the gastric lavage was not preserved nor any sample taken on which account, there is no scientific evidence to prove that the drink administered to the complainant was poisonous or intoxicating. Investigation of the case is complete. Petitioner has clean antecedents. Truth of the allegations against her can be determined only on conclusion of trial which is likely to take long. There is no reason to suspect that petitioner would evade the trial or flee from justice. Considering all relevant facts and circumstances of the case, but without commenting on REEMA SAINI
merits, petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail subject to her furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL)
JUDGE 27.08.2026 reema Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No
REEMA SAINI