No Active Role In Alleged Murder, Long Custody: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Regular Bail To Woman Accused In Teen’s Death Case
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Single Bench of Justice Surya Partap Singh has granted regular bail to a woman accused in a case concerning the death of a 19-year-old girl, directing her release on furnishing personal and surety bonds subject to conditions. The Court noted that the Special Investigation Team’s findings, based on analysis of CCTV footage and call records, did not attribute any active role to her in the alleged murder, and took a lenient view given she is a woman. The case arose from a complaint that the teenager went missing after travelling to Maur Mandi and was allegedly taken away in a vehicle. In March 2025, after a two-day search, her body was recovered from a canal near Yatri village in Punjab’s Maur Mandi area.
Also Read: S.126 Indian Contract Act | Promoter’s Fund-Infusion Undertaking Not A Guarantee: Supreme Court
The prosecution later reported that the body of the victim was recovered from a canal, leading to the addition of the offence punishable under Section 103 BNS. A Special Investigation Team was constituted to investigate the matter. Based on CCTV footage, call detail records, and witness statements, the SIT reconstructed the sequence of events, indicating that the deceased had voluntarily travelled and remained in the company of one of the co-accused prior to her death. The petitioner sought bail on the ground that she had no active role in the alleged offence, that no recovery was pending from her, and that she had remained in custody for over nine months while the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future.
The Court examined the findings of the Special Investigation Team placed on record and noted that the investigation involved analysis of CCTV footage, call detail records, and statements of witnesses. The Court recorded that “as per findings recorded by SIT she was not actively involved in the commission of offence of murder of deceased.”
It was further observed that the petitioner had remained in judicial custody for a prolonged period, with the Court noting “that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more than nine and half months.” The Court also took into account the stage of the proceedings and stated “that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future.”
The Court considered the absence of any material indicating potential misuse of liberty and observed “that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses.” It further recorded “that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not co-operate/participate in the trial.”
Relying on settled principles governing bail, the Court referred to precedent to reiterate that “a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence” and that “the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail… is an exception.” The Court also acknowledged the constitutional dimension of prolonged incarceration, observing that “right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
On an overall assessment of the material placed before it, the Court found that continued detention of the petitioner would not serve any useful purpose.
The Court directed that “the present petition is hereby allowed. TYhe petitioner is hereby ordered to be released on bail on her furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.”
The release was made subject to conditions, including that “the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case. The petitioner shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Court concerned and shall notify the change in address to the trial Court. The petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate; Mr. Nikhil Ghai, Advocate; Mr. Nikhil Thamman, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab; Mr. Naresh Jain, Advocate for the complainant
Case Title: Dimple v. State of Punjab
Neutral Citation: 2026: PHHC:000892
Case Number: CRM-M-38618-2025
Bench: Justice Surya Partap Singh
