Punjab-Haryana High Court
Xxxxxxxxxxxx vs Xxxxxxxxxxxx on 27 April, 2026
CRM-M-10234-2026 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
203 CRM-M-10234-2026
Date of Decision: 27.04.2026
NEERAJ SHAHRU ....PETITIONER
Vs.
STATE OF PUNJAB .....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEERJA K. KALSON
Present:- Mr. Uzra Khan, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Gorav Kathuria, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Saksham Khunger, Advocate
for the complaint.
****
NEERJA K. KALSON, J.
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking the concession of anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No. 268 dated 17.12.2025, under Sections 108, 3(5) BNS, registered at Police Station Balongi, District SAS Nagar Mohali, on the allegations that the wife of the petitioner, namely Anjali, was subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of demand of dowry and was ultimately driven to commit suicide within a period of seven years of marriage.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the allegations levelled in the FIR are general and vague in nature and do not attribute any specific overt act to the petitioner. It has further been submitted that the deceased was suffering from certain medical ailments and was under
mental stress, which may have contributed to the unfortunate incident. Learned PRIYANKA 2026.04.27 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-10234-2026 -2- counsel submits that the essential ingredients of the offence of abetment to suicide are not made out, inasmuch as there is no proximate or direct link between any alleged act of the petitioner and the death of the deceased. It is further argued that the petitioner is willing to join investigation and cooperate with the investigating agency and that no recovery is to be effected from him; therefore, custodial interrogation is not warranted.
3. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail by submitting that the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR and is the husband of the deceased. It is submitted that there are specific and categorical allegations that the petitioner, along with his family members, subjected the deceased to continuous physical and mental cruelty on account of insufficient dowry. It is further submitted that the deceased was found hanging in her matrimonial home within seven years of marriage, attracting serious penal consequences. Learned State counsel submits that the allegations disclose a continuous course of conduct amounting to cruelty and harassment, which ultimately led the deceased to commit suicide, and thus custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
5. At the stage of consideration of anticipatory bail, this Court is not required to conduct a mini trial or to record a conclusive finding on the merits of the case. However, the nature and gravity of the allegations, the role attributed to the accused, and the requirement of custodial interrogation are relevant considerations.
PRIYANKA 2026.04.27 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-10234-2026 -3-
6. In the present case, the petitioner is the husband of the deceased and is specifically named in the FIR. There are direct allegations that he, along with his family members, subjected the deceased to physical as well as mental harassment on account of demand of dowry. It is further alleged that such harassment was continuous in nature and that the deceased ultimately committed suicide within one year and two months of marriage. The allegations, thus, prima facie disclose a serious offence involving cruelty and abetment of suicide.
7. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the allegations are vague and that the deceased was suffering from medical issues or mental stress are matters which would be examined during the trial. The plea that no specific overt act has been attributed to the petitioner cannot be accepted at this juncture in view of the categorical assertions in the FIR regarding continuous harassment.
8. Considering the nature of allegations, the relationship of the petitioner with the deceased, and the fact that the investigation is still underway, this Court is of the considered view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner cannot be ruled out at this stage.
9. Without commenting upon the merits of the case, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.
10. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
(NEERJA K. KALSON) JUDGE 27.04.2026 pry Whether her Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No PRIYANKA 2026.04.27 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document