Manpreet Kaur @ Soni vs State Of Punjab And Others

CRM-M-43121-2026
:: ::
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
(102)
CRM-M-43121-2026 (O & M)
Date of decision:04.11.2026
Manpreet Kaur @ Soni .... Petitioner
V/s
State of Punjab and ors. ...Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. Ramandeep Singh Gill, Advocate
for the petitioner(s).
*
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)
The prayer in the present petition under Section 483(3) read
with Section 528 BNSS (Section 439(2) Cr.P.C.) is for cancellation of the
bail granted to the private respondents No. 2 to 6 vide orders dated
19.06.2026 (Annexure P-2) and 07.07.2026 (Annexure P-3).
2. The brief facts of the case are that an occurrence took place on
27.02.2026 leading to the registration of an FIR No.34 dated 03.03.2026
under Sections 91, 191(3), 190 and 351(2) of BNS (Sections 315, 148, 149
IPC), Police Station Mullanpur, District SAS Nagar at the instance of the
complainant-petitioner/Manpreet Kaur @ Soni (hereinafter known as ‘the
petitioner’) which reads as under:-
SUKHPREET KAUR
2026.11.05 14:56
I agree to specified
portions of this document

CRM-M-43121-2026
:: ::
2
COPY OF STATEMENT, "Statement of Manpreet Kaur alias
Soni, wife of Gursewak Singh alias Ladi, resident of Village
Majra, District Mohali, Police Station Mullapur Garibdas
(Age: 22 years), Mobile: 7973426810 stated that I am a
resident of the aforesaid address. My marriage was solemnized
4 years ago with Gursewak Singh alias Ladi, son of Surmukh
Singh, resident of Village Majra. I have no children till date. I
am presently approximately 3 months pregnant. On 27/02/2026,
my husband's vehicle bearing No. HR 26 DM 7572, make
Verna, colour black, was returning home after some household
work. At that time, Manjit Kaur, wife of Surmukh Singh, was
standing outside her house in the street. Along with her,
Surmukh Singh and their sons Amandeep Singh and Simranjit
Singh were sitting on a bench placed outside their house. My
husband Gursewak Singh alias Ladi stopped the vehicle, got
down, and said to Surmukh Singh: "Brother, please return my
money, I am in great financial difficulty." In response, Surmukh
Singh abused my husband and a heated argument ensued
between them. At that time, bystanders separated them and my
husband returned home Immediately behind him. Manjit Kaur,
Surjit Singh, Amandeep Singh, and Simranjit Singh, along with
Gurdeep Singh alias Deepa, son of Banta Singh, who was
carrying a stick in his hand, came to our house at
approximately 9:30 PM, abusing and threatening. When I heard
this and rushed outside, Gorsewak Singh alias Ladi was trying
to enter the house. At that point, Gurdeep Singh alias Deepa
attempted to strike with the stick, and as I rushed forward to
intervene and stop him, the stick hit me on the left side of my
forehead Simranjit Singh pushed me and I fell down. While I
was lying on the ground, Gurdeep Singh alias Deepa struck my
SUKHPREET KAUR
2026.11.05 14:56
I agree to specified
portions of this document
abdomen with the stick, and Amandeep Singh and Manjit Kaur

CRM-M-43121-2026
:: ::
3
kicked me. while Surjit Singh kept saying: "Teach them a lesson
today for asking for money. After beating us thoroughly, they
fled from the house while issuing threats to kill us. I suffered
severe pain and my husband admitted me to Civil Hospital
Kharar, District Mohali for treatment. The reason for the
enmity is that my husband and our entire family had sold land
in Village Majra, out of which Rs. 25 lakhs were retained by
Manjit Kaur and Surjit Singh, who are now refusing to return
the money despite demands. It is with the intent of not returning
the money that they all conspired together and caused injuries
to us. Talks of settlement/compromise had been ongoing
between the parties till now, however today, upon the doctor
conducting an ultrasound, it was found that the heartbeat of the
approximately 11-week-old foetus in my womb had ceased, and
the doctor has advised medical intervention for
miscarriage/abortion, and I have been referred from Civil
Hospital Kharar to Civil Hospital Phase 6, Mohali, where I am
presently under treatment. My miscarriage has occurred as a
result of the beating inflicted upon me by all the aforesaid
persons. Appropriate legal action be taken against them. Today,
in the presence of my husband, I have dictated this statement,
which has been read out to me and I confirm it to be correct.
Deponent Signature: Manpreet Kaur.
3. Pursuant to the registration of the FIR, a cross-version bearing
DDR No.23 dated 04.03.2026 under Sections 115(2), 296, 332(C ), 3(5) and
351(2) of BNS, 2023 was registered against the present petitioner
(complainant party in the present FIR) on the statement of respondent No.4-
Manjit Kaur.
SUKHPREET KAUR
2026.11.05 14:56
I agree to specified
portions of this document

CRM-M-43121-2026
:: ::
4
4. The accused-private respondents No.2 to 6 (hereinafter to be
known as ‘the respondents No.2 to 6’) sought the concession of anticipatory
bail and were granted interim anticipatory bail vide order dated 19.06.2026
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar (Annexure P-2). The
relevant extract of the same is as under:-
6. The accused/applicants had placed upon record a pendrive,
statedly containing contents extracted from CCTV camera
installed in the houses, which contained video footage of the
occurrence that had taken place at the relevant time and date.
The CCTV footage was played in the presence of the APP as
well as the IO. One of the footages was of the street, dated
27.02.2026 starting from 08:58 PM and was one hour long, i.e.
till 09:58 PM. In the footage at about 09:02 PM, it was the
husband of the complainant who could be seen approaching the
accused faction alongwith his other companions and he was
being quite aggressive upon which he was pushed back by his
own companions. Thereafter, a verbal altercation broke out and
the husband of the complainant kept on displaying aggressive
conduct in the street upon which the other persons present in
the street tried to pacify him. So much so, he could be seen
throwing a brick upon one of the CCTV cameras installed on
the house of the accused upon which the accused faction also
got stirred up and adopt aggressive posturing but no injury was
ever inflicted upon him. Eventually, he drives of from the scene
alongwith his other companions. It was pointed out by learned
counsel for the accused that nowhere the complainant was seen
present in the video. So much so, at about 09:20 PM, so shown
in the video footage, the car from which the husband of the
SUKHPREET KAUR
2026.11.05 14:56
I agree to specified
portions of this document

CRM-M-43121-2026
:: ::
5
complainant had alighted again returns back to the street and
one of the person can be seen dangling outside from the side
window of the car. Subsequently, a Swift car rolled out from the
house, which was pointed by counsel for the accused, as the
house of the accused and left the spot alongwith the occupants.
The stance of learned counsel for the accused was that the
accused had left for the police station fearing for their life and
safety at the hands of the rowdy conduct of husband of the
complainant and there was another video footage showing the
presence of accused faction in the police station. Besides that, a
screenshot of the phone call which had been made by accused
Amandeep Singh on 112 at 09:17 PM was also placed on
record. Thus, according to learned counsel for
accused/applicants, the chronology of events so visible in the
video footage completely upended the claimed order of events
in the FIR and raised a tall question about the veracity of the
version of the complainant. It was also argued by learned
counsel for the accused that according to the own stance of the
complainant, she was three months pregnant and it was a
matter of common knowledge that at that stage of pregnancy,
there is no such perceivable physical change in the body
indicating ongoing pregnancy. Consequently, no mischievous
intention in terms of section 91 of the BNS could be attributed
to the accused/applicants. As such, in the given set of
circumstances, the projected sequence of events, its credibility
becomes debatable. Therefore, in the light of the peculiar
circumstances, the accused/applicants are directed to join
investigation within ten days from this order and in the event of
arrest, the accused/applicants be released forthwith on interim
bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing bonds to the satisfaction
SUKHPREET KAUR
2026.11.05 14:56
I agree to specified
portions of this document
of the investigating officer, subject to the following conditions:

CRM-M-43121-2026
:: ::
6
1 the accused-applicants shall make themselves available
for interrogation by the investigating officer/competent
police officer as and when required ;
2 the accused-applicants shall not, directly or indirectly,
made any inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade
them from disclosing such facts to the court to any police
officer;
3 the accused-applicants shall not leave India without the
previous permission of the Court, including the trial
Court.
4 the accused-applicants shall attend the proceedings in
accordance with the conditions of the bonds so executed
under Chapter XXXV of BNSS.
5 the accused-applicants shall not commit an offence
similar to the offence of which they are accused, or
suspected, of the commission of which they are
suspected;
6 the accused-applicants shall not tamper with the
evidence by any means;
7 the accused-applicants shall appear before the trial
court on each date of hearing unless their personal
appearance is exempted.
7. The investigating officer is also directed to take into
possession the video footages so relied upon by the
accused/applicants and to also verify the genuineness of the
same since the contents of the video footage are found relevant
to the matter at hand by all accounts.
5. The respondents No.2 to 6 joined the investigation and the
interim anticipatory bail granted on 19.06.2026 was confirmed vide order
dated 07.07.2026 (Annexure P-3). The relevant extract of the said order is
as under:-
SUKHPREET KAUR
2026.11.05 14:56
I agree to specified
portions of this document

CRM-M-43121-2026
:: ::
7
5. Applicants/accused have joined the investigation as per
order dated 19.06.2026 of the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, SAS Nagar, (Mohali)/(Duty Judge) and investigating
officer has also suffered statement that applicants/accused have
already joined the investigation and their custodial
interrogation is not required. It is not disputed that it is a matter
of cross case and cross DDR has been registered against the
complainant party under Sections 115 (2), 296, 332 (C ), 3(5),
351(2) BNS.
6. As far as allegations relating to miscarriage suffered by
complainant are concerned, learned Addl. Sessions Judge,
(Duty Judge), SAS Nagar, (Mohali) has elaborately dealt with
the said allegations by going through the CCTV footage and
has observed that in the CCTV footage it was husband of
complainant who was seen behaving aggressively against the
accused party and only a verbal altercation has been taken
place between the parties and it was observed that the sequence
of event as narrated by the complainant appeared questionable.
This court has also gone through the CCTV footage in the
presence of both the Counsels and no where applicants/accused
were seen assaulting the complainant. In fact it was the
husband of complainant who has been aggressive and appears
to be charged up to enter into scuffle with the accused. In fact
complainant is no where to be seen in the entire footage.
It is further pertinent to mention here that in order to
make out an offence under Section 91 of BNS there has to be
intention on the part of the accused to cause miscarriage. In the
given facts, it is highly doubtful that the applicants/accused
were aware about the pregnancy of complainant and it has been
observed in order dated 19.06.2026 that complainant was three
SUKHPREET KAUR
2026.11.05 14:56
I agree to specified
portions of this document

CRM-M-43121-2026
:: ::
8
months pregnant and at that stage of pregnancy there is no
physical change in the body to indicate factum of pregnancy.
7. Therefore, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances
of the present case, this court is of the considered opinion that
order dated 19.06.2026 should be confirmed.
8. Hence, in view of the reasons mentioned in the interim
bail order dated 19.06.2026 and without commenting anything
on the merits of the case, the interim bail order dated
19.06.2026 stands confirmed subject to the terms and
conditions as mentioned in the said order as well as envisaged
under Section 482 (2) of BNSS. The bail application is allowed
accordingly. Record of investigation be returned. File be
consigned to the record room.
6. The aforementioned orders dated 19.06.2026 (Annexure P-2)
and 07.07.2026 (Annexure P-3) are under challenge in the present petition.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
impugned orders dated 19.06.2026 and 07.07.2026 (Annexures P-2 and P-3
respectively) have been passed without proper appreciation of the facts. The
injuries sustained by the petitioner were documented the same night as per
the MLR prepared by Dr. Smridhi Jain, Emergency Medical Officer, Civil
Hospital, Kharar. The MLR records the petitioner as being pregnant for 11
weeks. Three injuries have been found therein. The weapon used is stated
to be a blunt one. The Ultrasound report records the finding as suggestive of
“possibility of Early Pregnancy Loss”. It is apparent that the petitioner’s
miscarriage was on account of the injuries caused to her with a stick and
kick blows. The Courts while granting anticipatory bail to the respondents
SUKHPREET KAUR
2026.11.05 14:56
I agree to specified
portions of this document

CRM-M-43121-2026
:: ::
9
No.2 to 6 have been relied substantially on the CCTV footage to hold that
the petitioner was not seen being assaulted therein. In fact, the occurrence
had taken place inside the house and therefore, the assault on the petitioner
could not have been captured on CCTV camera. He, thus, prays that the
impugned orders (Annexures P-2 and P-3) be set aside and the respondents
No.2 to 6 be committed to custody.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
9. When the petitioner was taken to hospital on 27.03.2026, she
was found to have suffered the following injuries:-
Sr. No. Injury Details Injury Pictorial
Number depiction
1. Swelling 4CMx2CM on left side
forehead pain present, no
external injury present
1 Yes
2. Complains of pain in abdomen
advise USG whole abdomen and
gynae opinion referred to phase 6
2 Yes
3. Complains of pain in back
region, no external injury
present, tenderness negative
3 Yes
Nature of injuries (simple, grievous, dangerous or pending for
observation
1. Simple, 2, 3 KUO
10. A perusal of the injuries would reveal no external injury either
on the left side of the forehead where there was swelling or on the back
region where the petitioner has complained of pain. As per the FIR,
Gurdeep Singh @ Deepa-respondent No.5 had struck her abdomen with a
SUKHPREET KAUR
2026.11.05 14:56
I agree to specified
portions of this document

CRM-M-43121-2026
:: ::
10
stick whereas Amandeep Singh and Manjit Kaur, respondents No.3 and 4,
had given her (Manpreet Kaur @ Soni) kick blows. In the absence of any
external injury, the prosecution version becomes doubtful.
11. The CCTV footage which is available on record would show
that it was the husband of the petitioner, namely, Gursewak Singh who was
behaving in an aggressive manner and scuffling with respondents No.2 to 6.
A cross-case also stands registered against the petitioner i.e. complainant
party in the present FIR. There is every possibility that the petitioner
suffered a miscarriage on account of stress but has implicated the
respondents No.2 to 6 on account of a family dispute which fact itself is
narrated in the FIR.
12. The Court in its wisdom has granted anticipatory bail to the
private respondents and a bare reading of the impugned orders dated
19.06.2026 and 07.07.2026 (Annexures P-2 and P-3 respectively) clearly
reflect that there has been due application of mind on the part of the Court
and only then, have the respondents No.2 to 6 been granted the said
concession which cannot be cancelled merely because a superior Court holds
a different view for cancellation of bail already granted. The impugned
order must reflect that bail has been granted either by completely misreading
the evidence on record or on completely erroneous considerations. In the
instant case, no such finding can be arrived at by this Court.
13. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petition and
the same stands dismissed.
SUKHPREET KAUR
2026.11.05 14:56
I agree to specified
portions of this document

CRM-M-43121-2026
:: ::
11
14. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of
accordingly.
( JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
November 04, 2026 JUDGE
sukhpreet
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
SUKHPREET KAUR
2026.11.05 14:56
I agree to specified
portions of this document