Punjab and Haryana HC Grants Bail to Husband Accused of Assaulting Pregnant Wife to Force Sex-Determination Test
Justice Sanjay Vashisth granted bail to the husband arrested for assaulting his pregnant wife, citing completed investigation, simple injuries, and over three months of incarceration.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, on 3 August 2026, granted regular bail to Gurbans Singh, a 35-year-old man from Sri Muktsar Sahib district, who had been in judicial custody since 21 April 2026 in connection with an FIR alleging severe physical assault on his pregnant wife. Justice Sanjay Vashisth, sitting singly, allowed the petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — the successor provision to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure — after finding that the investigation had concluded, all injuries on the complainant were declared simple, and no useful purpose remained in continued detention pending trial.
The Allegations in FIR No. 049 of 2026
FIR No. 049, dated 20 April 2026, was registered at Lakhewali Police Station, Sri Muktsar Sahib, against Gurbans Singh under Sections 91, 62, 118(1), and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — corresponding to the erstwhile Sections 315, 511, 324, and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
According to the complainant, Joginder Kaur, she and the petitioner married on 5 May 2019 and have two daughters — one aged approximately five and a half years and the other about two years old. At the time of the alleged incident, she was approximately three months pregnant.
The complainant alleged that on 14 April 2026 at around 4 P.M., and again on 15 April 2026 at around 8 A.M., the petitioner, after consuming liquor, physically assaulted her. The specific conduct alleged includes catching her by her hair, banging her head against a wall, and repeatedly assaulting her with fists and kicks. He is further alleged to have caused injuries on her forearms using a knife or vegetable cutter. Total injuries sustained by the complainant numbered eleven. The FIR was registered on 20 April 2026 — five days after the last alleged incident.
The prosecution's case, as placed before the court through the State's status report dated 1 August 2026, is that the petitioner, unwilling to have a third female child, persistently compelled the complainant to undergo an ultrasound examination to determine the sex of the foetus. The purpose, according to the State, was to terminate the pregnancy if the foetus was female. When the complainant refused, the petitioner allegedly subjected her to the physical assault described above. The State argued that this conduct attracted Section 91 of the BNS, 2023, which addresses acts done with the intention of preventing a child from being born alive.
Arguments Before the Court
Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Impinder Singh Dhaliwal, pressed two points. First, that the FIR itself suffered from an unexplained delay of five days, despite the alleged incident having occurred on 15 April 2026. Second, that although the complainant sustained eleven injuries, every one of them was medically opined to be simple in nature. On those grounds, bail was sought.
Mr. Gurpartap Singh, Additional Advocate General for Punjab, relied on the status report and argued that the offence was grave. He submitted that the petitioner's conduct — compelling a pregnant wife to submit to an illegal sex-determination procedure, and assaulting her severely when she refused — was brutal and disentitled him from the concession of bail. However, the State counsel was unable to dispute that all eleven injuries were declared simple in nature by the medical authority.
How the Court Reasoned
Justice Vashisth acknowledged without hesitation that the conduct attributed to the petitioner, if ultimately established, is “undoubtedly reprehensible.” The court did not minimise the seriousness of the allegations.
That said, the court identified three concrete factors pointing in favour of release. The petitioner had been inside jail since 21 April 2026 — a period of more than three months at the time of the order. The investigation stood completed. And the conclusion of trial was likely to take considerable time.
Weighing those facts against the nature of the charges, the court concluded that keeping the petitioner behind bars for an indefinite period during the pendency of trial would serve no useful purpose. The bail petition was accordingly allowed.
The court was explicit that nothing in the order should be read as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The trial court was directed to take an independent view on the evidence on record and conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible.
Conditions and Observations on the Complainant's Welfare
Before disposing of the petition, Justice Vashisth made two observations that go beyond the standard bail conditions.
On the complainant's welfare, the court observed that she may, if she so desires, continue to reside at her parental home (mayka) until the delivery of the child and until she regains her normal physical and mental condition. The court stated that this observation was made to ensure that no untoward situation or inconvenience arises for the complainant in the matrimonial home during what it described as “this sensitive period.”
On the petitioner's conduct, the court observed that it would be in the larger interest of the family if the petitioner makes sincere efforts to overcome his habit of consuming liquor and takes due care of his aged mother and family responsibilities.
These observations carry no coercive force but were made on record before the order was finalised.
As regards standard bail conditions, the court directed that the petitioner shall not extend any threat to, nor influence, any prosecution witness, whether directly or indirectly.
Order
The petition, CRM-M-31622-2026 (O&M), was allowed on 3 August 2026. Gurbans Singh is directed to be released on bail upon furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Illaqa Magistrate, or Duty Magistrate concerned, subject to his not being required in any other case. Pending miscellaneous applications stood disposed of along with the petition.