Regular bail granted to senior-citizen parents where matrimonial dispute existed and investigation was substantially complete.

The petitioners, Jaswinder Kaur Lamba and Joginder Singh Lamba, parents of Gurpreet Kaur, sought regular bail in FIR No. 26 dated 22 June 2026, registered at Police Station Women, SAS Nagar, for offences recorded under Sections 318(2), 336, 339, 340, 316(2), 61, 338, 318(4) and 82(2) of the B.N.S.S., 2023, corresponding to Sections 420, 465, 471, 474, 406, 120-B, 467 and 494 IPC.

The prosecution case concerned alleged matrimonial harassment, monetary demands, concealment of Gurpreet Kaur’s earlier marriage, and misappropriation of jewellery and other articles given to her.

Both petitioners were senior citizens, had clean antecedents, and had remained in custody since 17 July 2026.

Whether the senior-citizen petitioners, accused in a matrimonial dispute involving allegations of fraud, misappropriation, and concealment of an earlier marriage, were entitled to regular bail?

Whether continued custodial detention was necessary when the petitioners had clean antecedents, cooperated with the investigation, and the documentary evidence had substantially been collected?

The Court considered the principles governing grant of regular bail, including the nature and seriousness of the allegations, the accused persons’ antecedents, their period of custody, cooperation with the investigation, the likelihood of influencing witnesses or fleeing from justice, and the necessity of further custodial interrogation.

The FIR invoked the statutory offences recorded under the B.N.S.S., 2023, corresponding to cheating, forgery, use or possession of forged documents, criminal breach of trust, criminal conspiracy, and bigamy provisions under the IPC as set out in the order.

The Court also considered the matrimonial context of the dispute and the pendency of proceedings under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The Court treated the dispute as arising substantially from matrimonial discord between Gurpreet Kaur and the complainant.

It noted that the complainant had already instituted proceedings for annulment of the marriage and that Gurpreet Kaur had filed a separate complaint alleging sexual harassment, demonstrating the existence of competing matrimonial allegations.

Since they had cooperated with the investigating officer, documentary evidence had already been collected, and there was no material suggesting that they could influence witnesses or abscond, further custodial detention was held unnecessary.

The Court accordingly refrained from making any observation on the merits and applied the ordinary considerations relevant to regular bail.

It held that the continued incarceration of the petitioners was not warranted, particularly in view of their advanced age, clean antecedents, cooperation with the investigation, collection of documentary evidence, and absence of demonstrated flight or witness-influence risks.

Jaswinder Kaur Lamba and Joginder Singh Lamba were ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court, Duty Magistrate, or Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.