Naresh Kumar v. Haryana State of Haryana
Case Details
IN THE THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH PUNJAB & HARYANA 103 CRM-M-63294 Date of decision: 63294-2025 (O&M) decision: 12.11.2025 Naresh Kumar ...Petitioner VERSUS Haryana State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Mr. Niraj Sinhmar, Advocate, Present :- Mr. for the petitioner. Dr. Haryana. (Ms.) Malvika Singh, DAG, Haryana. VINOD S. BHARDWAJ BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) ***** The present petition has been filed The filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case case bearing FIR No.410 dated 04.10.2025 registered under Section 103(1), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station Pundri, District Kaithal. Kaithal. 2.
Legal Reasoning
The FIR in the present case was registered The registered on the complaint of Gagandeep Singh, Singh, son of Dharambir Singh, in connection connection with the unnatural death of his elder elder sister, Anjali Rani, who was married married to Naresh Kumar, son of Prithi Singh, resident resident of Village Ramana, District District Kaithal. As per the complaint, the marriage between Anjali Rani Rani and Naresh Kumar was solemnized on 10.12.2019, 10.12.2019, and two male children children were born out of the said wedlock. After the marriage, Naresh Kumar, along along with his parents, Prithi Singh and Palo Devi, his sister Ritu, and her husband Narender, allegedly started harassing harassing and physically assaulting Anjali Anjali Rani. Despite repeated interventions and and panchayats convened by the the complainant requesting the SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.11.14 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 103 accused not to mistreat CRM-M-63294-2025(O&M) CRM mistreat her, the harassment continued.The ontinued.The complainant further 2 stated that on 03.10.2025, 03.10.2025, his sister Bindu received received a phone call from Naresh Kumar, during which which Naresh was allegedly assaulting assaulting Anjali Rani and forcibly making her consume consume some intoxicating substance. substance. He also purportedly admitted over the the phone to having strangulated strangulated her. Upon receiving this information, the complainant and his family members members rushed to Om Hospital, Pundri, where they they were informed that Anjali Rani Rani had already succumbed. Her body was subsequently subsequently taken to the Government Government Hospital, Kaithal, for post- mortem examination. examination. Initially, a complaint regarding regarding accidental death had been lodged on 03.10.2025; 03.10.2025; however, upon learning the the circumstances of poisoning and strangulation, strangulation, the complainant became convinced convinced that Anjali Rani had been murdered by Naresh Naresh Kumar and his family members, members, leading to the registration of the present FIR FIR seeking strict legal action against against all the accused. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf Learned behalf of the petitioner submits that the deceased, deceased, Anjali Rani, wife of the petitioner, petitioner, had been suffering from epileptic seizures seizures since 2018. Despite the the petitioner’s best efforts to secure proper medical medical treatment, her condition did not improve, leading her into a state of of depression for which she was was under treatment at VK Neurocare & Trauma Trauma Research Hospital. It is is contended that due to her deteriorating health health and prolonged illness, Anjali Anjali Rani, in a state of despair, consumed poison poison (salfas tablets). She was immediately rushed to the hospital by the petitioner; however, she could not not be saved.Counsel further submits that the the family members of the deceased deceased were fully aware of her medical condition. condition. Initially, the FIR was registered registered under Sections 103(1) read with Section Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.11.14 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 103 Station Pundri. CRM-M-63294-2025(O&M) CRM However, during the course of investigation, those sections 3 were dropped, and and Section 108 of the Bharatiya Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, was added instead. He He further contends that as many many as 5 persons including the petitioner and his his family members, were initially initially nominated as suspects by the complainant, complainant, four of them namely, Prithi, Palo Palo Devi, Ritu, and Narender were found innocent innocent upon investigation. This, according to the petitioner, indicates false implication implication and absence of any participation on his part.He also submits that that the marriage between the petitioner petitioner and the deceased had subsisted for over over six years and that there were were no prior allegations of matrimonial discord. discord. He places reliance on the judgment judgment dated 21.01.2022 in Maam Gujjar @ @ Maam Hussain v. State of Punjab Punjab (CRM-M-2386-2022), to contend that in cases where a woman that woman commits suicide under suchcircumstances, the ingredients of Section 108 suchcircumstances, 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, are are not attracted. On these grounds, grounds, counsel prays that the petitioner be granted granted the concession of anticipatory anticipatory bail. 4. Learned State Counsel, on the other Learned other hand, submits that the FIR came to be registered registered on the basis of apprehension apprehension expressed by the complainant, Gagandeep Gagandeep Singh, brother of the deceased, deceased, who suspected that his sister, Anjali Anjali Rani, had been killed by her husband husband (the petitioner herein) and his family members. members. This suspicion arose from from information relayed by another sister, Bindu, Bindu, who had informed the complainant complainant that the petitioner had beaten the deceased. The said version, being being the earliest account, was founded entirely entirely on telephonic information and on the complainant‘s ensuing suspicion, suspicion, which fructified upon learning of Anjali Rani‘s death.Upon verification verification during investigation, it was found that the death of SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.11.14 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 103 Anjali Rani was CRM CRM-M-63294-2025(O&M) was a case of suicide. Consequently, Consequently, Sections 103(1) read with 4 Section 3(5) of of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Sanhita, 2023, were deleted, and Section 108 was was added. Learned State Counsel Counsel further contends that although it is not not disputed that the deceased deceased had been diagnosed with epilepsy since 2018, 2018, there is no material on record record to suggest that she was suffering from depression depression or suicidal tendencies tendencies as a result of her medical condition. Moreover, Moreover, there is no evidence to show show that she was experiencing frequent or severe severe seizures that could have pushed pushed her to take such an extreme step.It is is contended that the deceased was was the mother of two young childrenand it is is improbable that a mother would would voluntarily end her life merely on account account of an ailment, particularly when when such condition had not hindered her ability ability to fulfill her matrimonial and and maternal responsibilities. 5. I have
Legal Reasoning
have heard learned counsel for the the respective parties and have gone through the the documents appended along with with the present petition. 6. The entire explanation/defence putforth The putforth by the petitioner before this Court rests upon upon the plea that the deceased, Anjali Anjali Rani, had been suffering from epileptic seizures.It is not disputed that that she had been undergoing treatment for the the said condition since 2018. However, However, the medical documents placed on record record merely indicate that her treatment treatment was ongoing and continued over time; there is no material to suggest that she she had recently experienced any episodes or fits. Besides, the deceased‘s marriage marriage was solemnized in 2019, i.e., subsequent to her her diagnosis, and she had thereafter thereafter given birth to two children. This clearly indicates indicates that her medical condition condition had neither impaired her marriage prospects prospects nor affected her ability to discharge discharge her matrimonial and maternal responsibilities. responsibilities. Therefore, the mere existence existence of epilepsy cannot, by SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.11.14 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-63294-2025(O&M) CRM 103 itself, be construed construed as a compelling factor that could could have driven the deceased 5 to commit suicide. suicide. There is nothing on record to suggest suggest that her condition had deteriorated or the disease had aggravated over over a period of time and had attained a level where where it was uncontrollable and there was no way out. Under such circumstances, circumstances, it appears that the plea of illness illness is being invoked by the petitioner as a convenient convenient defence to avoid answering answering the difficult question as to the cimmediate cimmediate circumstances that led to the unfortunate act of suicide by Anjali Rani. 7. It is is not in dispute that the death of deceased deceased Anjali Rani occurred within the confines nfines of her matrimonial home and and that the incident took place around 12:00 noon. noon. The circumstances which led led or impelled the deceased to take the extreme extreme step of ending her life are matters matters exclusively within the knowledge of the the petitioner. However, for reasons reasons best known to him, the petitioner has chosen chosen to withhold this vital information information from the Court, thereby casting a serious serious shadow on the credibility of his his defence and the true account of events preceding preceding the death. 8. So far far as reliance on the order dated 21.01.2022 passed in ’Maam Gujjar @ Maam Maam Hussain Vs. State of Punjab ‘in in CRM-M-2386-2022, the said order does not lay lay down any law on the issue of grant grant of anticipatory bail. The entitlement of a person to claim such benefit has has to be seen on the facts and circumstances of of each case. 9. Since the genesis of the occurrence Since occurrence has not been fully disclosed and the petitioner petitioner is not being honest with respect respect to the events immediately preceding the commission commission of suicide by deceased deceased Anjali Rani, this Court is of the view that custodial custodial interrogation of the petitioner petitioner is necessary to determine the true circumstances circumstances and underlying cause that led led to the unfortunate death of SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.11.14 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM CRM-M-63294-2025(O&M) 103 Anjali Rani. the deceased-Anjali 10. 11. Consequently, the present petition is Consequently, dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand Pending
Decision
stand disposed of. 6 12.11.2025 Sumit Gusain Whether speaking/reasoned speaking/reasoned reportable Whether reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) (VINOD JUDGE SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.11.14 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document