Arshdeep Singh v. State Of Punjab

-1Mr. Mehul Khanna, Advocate for respondent No. 2. (through video conferencing) CRM-14725-2026 The present application has been filed for placing on record the short reply along with Annexures A-1 to A-7 on behalf of the complainant to oppose the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner. Application is allowed as prayed for.

Short reply along with Annexures A-1 to A-7 are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

1.

The present petition has been filed seeking grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.0076 dated 14.05.2025, under Sections 87, 127(2), 314 and 351(2) of BNS, 2023 registered at Police Station Division No. 1, District Jalandhar (Annexure P-1).

-23.

Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail. 4.

It is a strange case where the complainant herself filed a petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking annulment of a marriage, meaning thereby, the complainant herself admits the factum of marriage. The integrity of a boy also deserves to be protected, though in the present case, the antecedents of the petitioner are not clean but it cannot be ruled out that in a given situation, if this lodging of false FIRs are not taken with strict hands, the fundamental rights of a genuine person are also put to peril. Moreover, the contentions of the petitioner has been detailed in the order dated 04.02.2026 and the complainant was unable to answer to the question as to why did she call up the petitioner, who was residing at Malerkotla, to come to Jalandhar and thereafter, travelled with him from Jalandhar to Chandigarh.

Prima facie, it appears that the complainant herself concealed the factum of marriage with the petitioner from her family. However, let all these disputed questions of facts be left open to be examined by the learned Trial Court during the course of trial at an appropriate stage.

5.

Learned State counsel, on instructions, submits that the petitioner has joined the investigation. However, it is contended that, as per the allegations, the mobile phone of the complainant is still in the possession of the petitioner, to which l

-3-