Xxxxxxxxxxxx vs Xxxxxxxxxxxx
2026 Latest Caselaw 3836 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Xxxxxxxxxxxx vs Xxxxxxxxxxxx on 27 April, 2026

            CRM-M-2821-2026                      -1-


                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                           AT CHANDIGARH

            202                                               CRM-M-2821-2026
                                                              Date of Decision: 27.04.2026

            AKASH VERMA                                            ....PETITIONER

                                           Vs.

            STATE OF PUNJAB                                        .....RESPONDENT

            CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEERJA K. KALSON
            Present:-           Ms. Navjot Kaur, Advocate for
                                Mr. Brijeshwar Singh Bhalla, Advocate
                                for the petitioner.
                                Mr. Gorav Kathuria, DAG, Punjab.
                                Mr. Prateek Sodhi, Advocate
                                for the complainant.
                                ****

            NEERJA K. KALSON, J.

1. Petitioner has filed instant petition under Section 482 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 for grant of anticipatory

bail in FIR No.104 dated 31.12.2025, under Section 85 of BNS, 2023,

registered at Women Cell, Amritsar, District Amritsar.

2. The factual matrix, as projected by the petitioner, is that the

marriage between the petitioner and the complainant was solemnized in the

year 2015 and the parties cohabited for a substantial period of about ten years.

It is contended that during this entire period, no complaint whatsoever was

ever made by the complainant alleging demand of dowry or cruelty at the

hands of the petitioner or his family members. It is further the case of the

petitioner that no child was born out of the wedlock and the complainant

remained under mental stress on account thereof, which led to discord in the

matrimonial relationship.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations

levelled in the FIR are false, exaggerated and have been made after an

inordinate delay of nearly a decade, thereby rendering the same inherently

improbable. It is further submitted that on a prior occasion, when the

complainant had suffered injuries and was taken for medical treatment, she

herself did not attribute the same to the petitioner, and rather expressed

uncertainty regarding the cause of injuries, which finds mention in the medical

record placed on record as Annexure P-2. It is contended that the present FIR is

a result of matrimonial discord and has been instituted only to harass the

petitioner. The petitioner is stated to have clean antecedents and has expressed

willingness to join investigation and cooperate with the Investigating Agency.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel

appearing for the complainant, opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and

submits that serious allegations of cruelty and harassment have been levelled.

It has been pointed out that the anticipatory bail application filed by the

petitioner before the learned Court below already stands dismissed.

5. A perusal of the order dated 09.01.2026 passed by the learned

Court below reveals that while declining the concession of anticipatory bail, it

has been observed that during the course of inquiry, the complainant had

produced photographs depicting customary rituals performed at the time of

marriage, including handing over of gold jewellery. The complainant is also

stated to have placed on record certain medical prescriptions in support of her

allegations of having been physically assaulted by the petitioner. It has further

been noticed that despite such allegations, the petitioner did not hand over the

gold articles belonging to the complainant. On such premise, the learned Court

below formed an opinion that in view of the conduct of the petitioner,

particularly the allegation that he had assaulted the complainant when

confronted with his alleged extramarital relationship, custodial interrogation

was necessary to unearth the truth and to effect recovery of the gold articles,

and that grant of anticipatory bail would adversely impact the investigation.

6. This Court has given its anxious consideration to the rival

submissions and has perused the material available on record.

7. At the outset, it is not in dispute that the marriage between the

parties was solemnized in the year 2015 and the FIR has been registered in the

year 2025. The delay of nearly ten years is setting the criminal law into motion,

though not decisive in itself, assumes significance at this stage, particularly in

the absence of any prior complaint or contemporaneous material reflecting

continuous act of cruelty.

8. The allegations, as they stand, are broadly worded and lack

specific instances with particular dates or details. The photographs relating to

marriage ceremonies and alleged handing over of jewellery, as referred to by

the learned Court below, may indicate that customary exchanges took place at

the time of marriage; however, at this stage, they do not conclusively establish

the essential ingredients of criminal breach or unlawful intention so as to

necessitate custodial interrogation.

9. Similarly, the medical prescriptions relied upon by the

complainant are matters which would require appreciation during trial. At this

stage, it is of some relevance that the complainant, at the time of receiving

medical treatment, is stated to have expressed uncertainty regarding the cause

of her injuries. Such aspect, though not conclusive, does create a circumstance

to be decided during trial.

10. As regards the recovery of gold articles, it has not been

demonstrated that the same cannot be effected without custodial interrogation,

particularly when the petitioner has undertaken to join investigation and

cooperate fully. It is well settled that custodial interrogation is not to be

resorted to as a matter of course and must be justified on specific and

compelling grounds.

11. It is also not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner is likely

to abscond, evade the process of law, or influence witnesses, if protected by an

order of anticipatory bail.

12. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this

Court is of the considered view that the factors noticed above tilt the balance in

favour of granting the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject

to stringent conditions.

13. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. In the event of arrest,

the petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail subject to his furnishing

bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting

Officer/Investigating Officer, and subject to the following conditions:

i. The petitioner shall join investigation as and when called upon to do so and shall cooperate with the Investigating Agency in all respects.

ii. The petitioner shall make himself available for recovery, if any, and shall not withold any article, if found to be in his possession.

iii. The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case.

iv. The petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.

v. The petitioner shall abide by all the conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

14. It is, however, made clear that in case the petitioner fails to

cooperate with the investigation or violates any of the conditions imposed

herein, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail.

15. Nothing said hereinabove shall be coghxnstrued as an expression

of opinion on the merits of the case.

                                                                 (NEERJA K. KALSON)
                                                                        JUDGE
            27.04.2026
            pry
                               Whether her Speaking/reasoned     Yes/No
                               Whether Reportable                Yes/No