Xxxxxxxxxxxx vs Xxxxxxxxxxxx
2026 Latest Caselaw 3838 P&H

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

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.

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