Sukhwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and another
Case Details
CRM-M-18539-2025 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (209) CRM-M-18539-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 17.11.2025 Sukhwinder Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.
Legal Reasoning
granting bail to the Respondent accused. While the Court did note the absence of prior criminal records, it failed to fully consider the stark realities of the allegations. It is unfortunate that in today's society, dowry deaths remain a grave social concern, and in our opinion, the courts are dutybound to undertake deeper scrutiny of the circumstances under which bail is granted in these cases. The social message emanating from judicial orders in such cases cannot be overstated when a young bride dies under suspicious circumstances within barely two years of marriage, the judiciary must reflect heightened vigilance and seriousness. A superficial application of bail parameters not only undermines the gravity of the offence itself but also risks weakening public faith in the judiciary's resolve to combat the menace of dowry deaths. It is this very perception of justice, both within and outside the courtroom, that courts must safeguard, lest we risk normalizing a crime that continues to claim numerous innocent lives. These observations regarding grant of bail in grievous crimes were thoroughly dealt with by this Court in Ajwar v. Waseem in the following paras: x x” x x 9. At this juncture, a reference can be made to the observations of the Delhi High Court made in Kuldeep Singh vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Bail Application No. 159/2025 & Crl.M.A.1040/2025, which are relevant for all cases where a life is lost due to the alleged harassment and cruelty, particularly due to demand for dowry. The Court, while dismissing the bail application of a husband in an FIR under sections 302/304B/498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, showcased remorse over the occurrence of such offences, by expressing thus: “16. While deciding bail applications in such cases, the Constitutional Courts bear in mind the intent behind enactment of provisions of law, especially such as Section 304B of IPC. Though this section came to be Courts time and again are saddened by the cases which come up before them for adjudication, reflecting that woman of this country are still harassed, tortured and killed, merely because they are married to a man, in a family which after the marriage, keeps demanding, as a matter of right due to the matrimonial alliance, money and dowry articles. x x x x x 18. Before concluding, this Court observes that cases of dowry death and murder, like the present one, often reveal a distressing pattern. Families of the victims frequently mention in their statements before the Court and the police that their daughters had complained about being tortured and feared for their lives due to Gurpreet Singh 2025.11.18 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-18539-2025 (O&M) -5- unmet dowry demands. However, due to societal pressure and the fear of social stigma, these families often suggest or compel their daughters to continue to try and adjust and live in their matrimonial homes, where they are subsequently killed or driven to suicide. 19. Judgments in such cases serve as a medium to highlight to society how young lives can be tragically lost under these circumstances and it may not always be advisable to convey message to the victim of dowry harassment and threats who are visibly beaten and battered by their husbands, that they should continue to endure suffering in their matrimonial homes as it is the “right” thing to do after marriage. This mindset emboldens, and is exploited by, perpetrators including a husband, who kills his wife, exploiting the situation that the victim wife has nowhere else to go, as her parental family is also advising her to live with him despite the torture and physical abuse. In cases such as the present one, granting bail liberally could encourage such practices and offences.” 10. In Srikant Upadhyay and others vs. State of Bihar and another, 2024 (INSC) 202 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: “It is thus obvious from the catena of decisions dealing with bail that even while clarifying that arrest should be the last option and it should be restricted to cases where arrest is imperative in the facts and circumstances of a case, the consistent view is that the grant of anticipatory bail shall be restricted to exceptional circumstances. In other words, the position is that the power to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438, Cr.P.C. is an exceptional power and should be exercised only in exceptional cases and not as a matter of course. Its object is to ensure that a person should not be harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy the grudge or personal vendetta of the complainant. (See the decision of this Court in HDFC Bank Ltd. v. J.J.Mannan & Anr. 2010 (1) SCC 679). Further, it was clearly observed in para No. 24 of the judgment (supra) that “though in many cases it was held that bail is said to be a rule, it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is the rule. It cannot be the rule and the question of its grant should be left to the cautious and judicious discretion by the Court depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. While called upon to exercise the said power, the Court concerned has to be very cautious as the grant of interim protection or protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investigation to a great extent as it may sometimes lead to tampering or distraction of the evidence. We shall not be understood to have held that the Court shall not pass an interim protection pending consideration of such application as the Section is destined to safeguard the freedom of an individual against unwarranted arrest and we say Gurpreet Singh 2025.11.18 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-18539-2025 (O&M) -6- that such orders shall be passed in eminently fit cases. At any rate, when warrant of arrest or proclamation is issued, the applicant is not entitled to invoke the extraordinary power. Certainly, this will not deprive the power of the Court to grant pre-arrest bail in extreme, exceptional cases in the interest of justice. But then, person(s) continuously, defying orders and keep absconding is not entitled to such grant.” 11. In Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2018) 7 SCC 731, the Constitution Bench reaffirmed that while considering applications for anticipatory bail, Courts should consider factors such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the specific facts of the case. 12. The general rule, put tersely, may be of bail, no jail; however, a just exception may be taken where there are circumstances which might thwart the course of justice. The antecedents of the accused or the probability of the accused fleeing, intimidating witnesses or tampering with the evidence, inter alia, weigh in heavy before the Court when dealing with a petition for the grant of anticipatory bail. 13. Prima facie, there are serious allegations against the petitioner qua subjecting the deceased to continuous harassment on account of demand of dowry. The deceased, who had been married only for about 05 months, on the day of alleged occurrence had made a telephonic call to the complainant and named the petitioner. She gave a distressing account of the circumstances which led her to take such an extreme step. She also uploaded a whatsapp status in the said regard specifically naming the petitioner. The post-mortem report of the deceased dated 22.08.2024 reveals the cause of death as asphyxia due to hanging. Under such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Gurpreet Singh 2025.11.18 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh 14. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. CRM-M-18539-2025 (O&M) -7- 15. However, nothing stated above shall be construed as a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court would proceed independently of the observations made in the present case which are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail petition. 16. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands
Arguments
Ms. Aakanksha Gupta, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Angad Parmar, Advocate for the complainant. **** KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL) 1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in case FIR No. 135 dated 21.8.2024, under Sections 80(2), 3(5) and 85 of BNS, 2023, registered at Police Station Basti Bawa Khel, District Jalandhar. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the petitioner is husband of the deceased and has been falsely implicated in the present FIR by respondent No. 2 (elder sister of the deceased) by leveling sweeping allegations. It is submitted that the marriage of the petitioner with the deceased was solemnized on 11.3.2024 and after few months of the marriage, they started residing separately from the family. It is also submitted that there are no specific allegations in the present FIR with regard to demand of dowry or harassment. Further, no overt act has been attributed to the present petitioner. Learned counsel also submits that since Gurpreet Singh 2025.11.18 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh there is no allegation against the petitioner qua instigating or abetting the CRM-M-18539-2025 (O&M) -2- deceased, therefore, the ingredients of Section 80(2) of BNS have not been made out qua the petitioner. It has further been submitted that vide order dated 18.6.2025, passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the petitioner has been granted interim bail, and in compliance of the said order, he has already joined and co-operated with the investigation. 3. Per contra, the learned State counsel as well as the learned counsel for the complainant oppose the present petition. 4. Learned State counsel while relying upon the status report dated 17.6.2025, submits that specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioner and other co-accused with regard to harassment of the deceased. Moreover, the deceased died in her matrimonial home within five months of her marriage. Learned counsel further submits that as per the statement of the complainant, the deceased has committed suicide on account of continuous demands of dowry and harassment at the hands of the petitioner- husband. It has also been submitted that before her death, the deceased had uploaded a whasapp status on her mobile phone, which reads as under:- “Ma Rxxxx apna ghar wala to bahut tang ho gayi ha es kar ke ma apni life khatam karan lagi ha. Ja ma mar gayi ta mari mot da jimavar mara ghar wala ta ohda gharvale honge Undi Ma Pahbi ta pyio.” 5. Further, as per the report of the post-mortem of the deceased, the cause of death has been opined due to asphyxia owing to hanging, which is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Therefore, it is submitted that the allegations levelled in the FIR duly stand corroborated by the above medical evidence. Accordingly, it is prayed that keeping in view gravity of offences, the present petition be dismissed. 6. Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsels for the Gurpreet Singh 2025.11.18 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh parties. CRM-M-18539-2025 (O&M) -3- 7. It has been the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no ground for denying the relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who had duly joined and co-operated in the investigation. With respect to this submission, a gainful reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in X vs Arun Kumar CK, Criminal Appeal No.1834/2022, the observations wherein read thus: “It may be true, as pointed out by learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1, that charge-sheet has already been filed. It will be unfair to presume on our part that the Investigating Officer does not require Respondent No.1 for custodial interrogation for the purpose of further investigation. …. In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked and he should be granted anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline custodial interrogation. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail.” 8. Reference to the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as Shabeen Ahmad Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr, SLP(Crl.) No.15156 of 2024, whereby bail granted to the parents-in- law petitioners was cancelled, can also be made, to the extent wherein it was held that: Gurpreet Singh 2025.11.18 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh “15. We also find it necessary to express our concern over the seemingly mechanical Approach adopted by the High Court in CRM-M-18539-2025 (O&M) -4-
Decision
disposed of. (KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE November 17, 2025 Gurpreet Singh Whether speaking/reasoned : : Whether reportable Yes/No Yes/No Gurpreet Singh 2025.11.18 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh