High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/13807/2025dismissed

Tajindervir Singh Bhelley v. State Of Punjab

2025-09-23Ms. Justice Kirti Singh6 pages

!"#!$%&%"'( )*)

AJINDERVIR SINGH BHELLEY ......Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB .....Respondent

( +, -)-

. -

Present:

Mr. Rishabh Bhandari, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Aakanksha Gupta, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. J.S. Jaidka, Advocate and Mr. Abhishek Khullar, Advocate for the complainant.

**** . -

/),

Allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions.

Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. (482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.153 dated 10.12.2024, under Sections 80, 85 and 3(5) of BNS, 2023, registered at Police Station Dehlon, District Police Commissionerate, Ludhiana. 2.

The contents of FIR are reproduced hereinafter.

# $#%!%& '()* & &++,,,--,- #. #.! #

2 /0 $ 0

! 0 1 230$#.#1# # % !# # 0 # !#

04# & 5 0# ! 104# & 5( %# !& #14# & -, .! 1

#&# /#52-3. 4 1! # # 4# # * !#

4 671!# / &!# / / &" # 2+8--85253*!#

# % #!

0##&671 !#0 # 4

4 !# # 0#& ## #0# #

671 !#0 *0%0 &

!!#0 # # *1 !#0 & # 671 !# !

% !4## *1!##4

# 9# # #6#8 4 !#

4%# ! !#

& #4!1

!0 9 7& # 40 9

40!

! & # *1 !#0 !

# !

! # #& 671!#*!#4 !1!

& (0'20222 80 1 & ,22!:#

4 #!#0!##!1 '20222 8 #8 4 # #

4!1 9 !1! # 40 # 8 4

4:52--525(0#8 4

&## # # .#!04 1 99 ,'"

#0 4# & 1 4 2'-5525(0671!#0#&

0 # 4

!#;

4#!#0 .0 !4#

##&7#< #!#

# 4 4 !#=8 4# #04#& # #9 # 1#

4 9# 671!#

## 0 671!# !#

#& #! # # 0& #!#0# # :#> 2-5525( 0##& #! # # #1!:#!#& 32"*0 671!##### 9#

# & #*1!##4

?# -'04 04#671 !#4! 1#

0# *4 !# $82-8 6823' 4#

! !#

0&# 0 ## 0 4# #!#! 1 ! ?#### 0#

####

& !## 0 4# ##

4 4 # # 1 9 $# 04## &! 0#4 * @0$#04## 2+-5525( +22"*6#

4#&##&671!#0 # 4

0##&# #0# #

0*1!#0& # 671!#0 #4

0/0 671!#0*0%0 &

$%99 9 # &!

#.4 ##9 1 00 "$0%

1 8 1#,,(585(+(0 6 7!#%.

# $# -2-5525(A 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present FIR on the statement of the mother of the deceased. It is submitted that the instant FIR has been registered on vague and baseless allegations. The petitioner or his family members never demanded any dowry from the deceased, rather the petitioner used to bear the expenses of the deceased, as can be evinced from Annexure P5. In fact, on 06.08.2024, the deceased gave beatings to the mother of the petitioner, upon which the police was called and compromise was effected. As such, the parties had stopped cohabiting together. The deceased had last resided at her parental home. It is further submitted that no suicide note was also recovered in the instant case. The petitioner is willing to join investigation and cooperate.

" 0learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submit that there are specific and serious allegations against the petitioner. They state that the petitioner was actively involved in the commission of the offence. 5.

Learned State counsel while placing reliance upon the status report dated 19.05.2025 submits that the marriage between the petitioner and

4 the deceased was solemnized on 09.11.2023. During the course of investigation, it was found that on 20.11.2024, a matter was reported at Police Station Doraha vide application No.857 that the daughter of the complainant had been thrown out of her matrimonial house after giving beatings. Subsequently, on 05.12.2024 another altercation took place between the daughter of the complainant and her motherinlaw, for which a panchayat was convened at her matrimonial home, where the motherinlaw refused to keep her son and daughterinlaw (since deceased) in her house. Thereafter, on 06.12.2024, the petitioner along with the daughter of the complainant were searching for a rented accommodation. At about 7:30 p.m.

, the petitioner went to make a call to his brother but did not return nor he answered the phone calls of the daughter of the complainant. Thereafter, her condition deteriorated due to distress and she was taken to Civil Hospital, Ludhiana, from where she was referred to DMC&H, Ludhiana, where she died on 09.12.2024. As such, it is submitted that the deceased was subjected to continuous mental cruelty and harassment at the hands of the petitioner and his family members for the sake of dowry. It is therefore averred that the custody of the petitioner is required. On a pointed query made with regard to the cause of death, learned State counsel on instructions submits that no injuries were found on the person of the deceased and as per the Chemical Examiner report dated 18.02.

2025, no poison was detected, as such, it was opined that the cause of death could be cardio pulmonary arrest. 6.

Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

In Srikant Upadhyay and others vs. State of Bihar and another, 2024 (INSC) 202 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

5 .# &1 # !4#&

#14#

!## &# 9 # & 4#91# 0# 14##!

9 & #

& > 9 . #4 0#9 ##9 4 ! 9 &

(3,0 " > 9 9 4# & > > 9 . &7 # 9 # & # # #!! 9 1 #

9 B# # $1 <<*@%52-2B-D

+D C#0 4

&1 9 : 5( # 7!B9D#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. . &# # ; !# & # 7 &# 9! #

# ?#

9 > #9 40#

# &1 #! 9 9 #

! 7 #9#1! ! > 9! # 1 ?#

& #1# ## #

99 9! # 99 # !# 1 !44# # #

&9 %04#4

0#99 1 #> 9 4 0#4

91# 9 4 # !98& >0> 9

# 7 #09 BD ! 9& ! #!A 8.

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.

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

6 the evidence, 0weigh in heavy before the Court when dealing with a petition for the grant of anticipatory bail. Trite to say that gravity of offence so alleged is also one of the considerations before a Court at the time of deciding a bail petition.

10.

Adverting to the case in hand, the marriage between both parties was solemnized on 09.11.2023, and the unfortunate death took place on 09.12.2024. Prima facie, there are allegations of demands of dowry and of subjecting the deceased to constant harassment levelled against the petitioner, which purportedly led her to consume some tablets, shortly whereafter she passed away. Further, prior to her death, the deceased had filed one application before the SHO, Police Station Doraha with regard to harassment caused to her by the petitioner and his family members, though subsequently withdrawn for the purpose of compromising the matter. As such, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the instant case, this Court is not inclined to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

11.

Accordingly, the instant petition stands dismissed. 12.

Needless to say that nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

. -

-!1 !23!4 /

56!&5 75! 5!4&1!8%'9:4!&"'!; ( !&:"

75! 5!44!1"4 36!

( !&:"