High court denies bail in Bathinda double murder case

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused bail to a man accused in a double murder case from Bathinda, holding that “the very magnitude and seriousness of the crime, disentitle the petitioner to the discretionary relief of bail”. The petitioner, along with a co-accused, is alleged to have brutally killed Jagmeet Singh – working with the police department – and his wife Beant Kaur following their court marriage.

The order by Justice Sumeet Goel has its genesis in an FIR registered for murder on December 4, 2023, under Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC at the Nathana police station in Bathinda district. The bench was told that “the instant case pertains to a heinous double murder, wherein two persons namely Jagmeet Singh and his wife Beant Kaur, lost their lives due to multiple grievous injuries inflicted upon the vital parts of their bodies. The postmortem findings unmistakably confirm the homicidal nature of their deaths”.

Taking up the petition filed against the state of Punjab by Hansa Singh, Justice Goel asserted that “the petitioner along with co-accused, who happens to be a close family member of the deceased Beant Kaur, hatched a deep-rooted conspiracy on account of court marriage solemnised between the deceased couple. The petitioner along with co-accused armed with deadly weapons, launched a brutal attack on the victims leaving them helpless resulting in their gruesome deaths”.

Dismissing the bail plea, Justice Goel observed the allegations against the petitioner were grave and specific, and clearly indicate his active participation in the commission of the crime. The complainant – the victim police official’s brother – consistently reiterated his version during the course of trial and the ocular account stood corroborated by medical and circumstantial evidence.

Justice Goel added “offences of this nature strike at the very root of public order and societal conscience. Granting bail in such cases would not only undermine the gravity of the offence but may also embolden the accused”. The bench also took note of the strong likelihood that the petitioner, if released, might abscond or attempt to “influence, threaten, or intimidate prosecution witnesses particularly when several material witnesses are yet to be examined”.

Justice Goel concluded that “the mere fact of prolonged custody cannot, in itself, constitute a ground for bail in cases of such grave and heinous character”. Holding that no compelling grounds were made out, the bench asserted: “Accordingly, this court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail… the petition is, thus, devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.”