Matrimonial Bond Alone Is No Crime: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail to Woman Accused of Harbouring Murder Accused

“Bail Is the Rule, Jail the Exception… Continued Custody Without Early Trial Offends Article 21”, In a reasoned and liberty-centric order, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to a woman accused of harbouring proclaimed offenders in a sensational murder case, holding that mere residence with her husband cannot justify prolonged incarceration. The Court emphasized that “bail is the rule and jail the exception” and that continued custody without likelihood of early conclusion of trial would violate Article 21 of the Constitution.

Murder FIR and the Allegation of Harbouring

The case arose from FIR No.130 dated 05.12.2024 registered at Police Station Maqboolpura, District Amritsar, under Sections 103 and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, with Sections 249, 61(2) and 49 BNS added subsequently.

The prosecution case alleged that Gurpreet Singh @ Peeti was shot dead by multiple assailants. During investigation, certain accused including Akashdeep Singh @ Gaggu — the husband of the present petitioner — were declared Proclaimed Offenders.

The petitioner Twinkle was later nominated on the allegation that she, along with others, had harboured the accused persons at a rented accommodation knowing that they had committed the offence. She was arrested on 21.06.2025 and remained in custody thereafter.

Significantly, she was not named in the original FIR.

Exception Under Section 249 BNS: A Crucial Concession

Before the Court, counsel for the petitioner argued that the only role attributed to her was that she stayed with her husband. Even assuming the prosecution case to be correct, the allegation would fall within the statutory exception carved out under Section 249 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which provides protection in cases involving close relatives, including spouses.

The State opposed the bail but candidly conceded that the petitioner’s case falls within the exception to Section 249 BNS. It was also admitted that she had clean antecedents and was not involved in any other criminal case.

The Court also noted that similarly situated co-accused alleged to have harboured the main accused had already been granted bail by coordinate Benches — making parity an important consideration.

Bail Jurisprudence Reaffirmed: Liberty at the Core

Justice Sawhney anchored the decision in established Supreme Court jurisprudence, citing Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, Dataram v. State of U.P., and Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P.

The Court reiterated that grant of bail is a matter of judicial discretion guided by factors such as the nature of accusation, gravity of offence, prima facie involvement, possibility of tampering with evidence and likelihood of absconding.

However, the Court made it clear that incarceration cannot become punitive at the pre-trial stage. Observing that investigation qua the petitioner stood completed and challan had been filed, the Court held:

“No useful purpose would be served by further detention of the petitioner… the same, without the prospect of trial being concluded in the near future, would be violative of her rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, including right to speedy trial.”

The Court thus placed constitutional liberty above speculative apprehensions.

Matrimonial Relationship Not Enough to Deny Bail

A notable feature of the judgment is the Court’s implicit recognition that mere matrimonial association with an accused cannot automatically translate into criminal culpability, especially at the stage of bail.

With no overt act attributed to the petitioner and the statutory exception under Section 249 BNS applicable, the Court found continued incarceration unjustified.

Conditions Imposed to Safeguard Trial

While granting bail, the Court imposed stringent conditions, including deposit of passport, prohibition on tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, mandatory appearance before the trial court, and compliance with any additional conditions imposed by the trial court.

The Court also clarified that any breach would entitle the State to seek cancellation of bail and that the observations made are confined strictly to bail adjudication.

A Liberty-Oriented Message Under the New Criminal Regime

This order assumes significance under the newly enacted BNS and BNSS framework, as it demonstrates judicial sensitivity in balancing the seriousness of a murder case with the limited role attributed to a spouse accused of harbouring.

By holding that “bail is a general rule and incarceration is an exception,” and linking prolonged custody to violation of Article 21, the High Court has reaffirmed that personal liberty cannot be curtailed mechanically — even in grave offences — unless compelling circumstances justify it.

The ruling sends a clear message: suspicion and association are not substitutes for concrete culpability at the stage of bail.

Date of Decision: 06 February 2026