Balkaran Singh v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 17.04.2026 Balkaran Singh .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab .....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEERJA K. KALSON Present:- Mr. Tejbir Singh Hundal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Jatinder Pal Singh, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Achin Gupta, Advocate for the complainant.

**** NEERJA K. KALSON, J .

1.

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 seeking the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 13 dated 20.01.2026 registered under Sections 108 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station Sadiq, District Faridkot (Annexure P-1).

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a bare perusal of the FIR as well as the statement of the deceased would reveal that the essential ingredients of the offence of abatement of suicide are not made out. It is contended that there is no specific allegation of instigation, intentional aid or conspiracy attributable to the petitioner. The allegations, at best, relate to a verbal altercation on the day of occurrence, which by itself cannot constitute abatement within the meaning of law. It is further

argued that the deceased herself stated that she consumed poison "without thinking," which clearly reflects an impulsive act, unconnected with any deliberate or proximate instigation by the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that there was neither any continuous harassment nor any coercive conduct, and in the absence of mens rea and a live link between the alleged act and the suicide, the offence under Section 108 BNS is not attracted. It is also argued that even if the prosecution case is accepted in its entirety, no offence is made out against the petitioner.

3.

Per contra, learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has opposed the petition and submits that the allegations against the petitioner are grave in nature. It is argued that the petitioner is the main accused and had actively participated in threatening and humiliating the deceased. It is further submitted that the deceased was stopped on the way and accused of having illicit relations, coupled with threats of making her recordings viral, which led to severe mental trauma and ultimately drove her to take the extreme step. It is also pointed out that although one of the co-accused has been granted anticipatory bail, she was a female having a minor child and was not attributed a principal role, whereas the present petitioner is the main instigator. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. 4.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

5.

A perusal of the FIR and the statement of the deceased shows that on the day of occurrence, the deceased was allegedly intercepted by the accused persons, including the present petitioner, and was accused of maintaining relations with one Tejinderpal Singh. It has also come on record

that the accused persons allegedly threatened her with consequences, including making her recordings viral. Immediately thereafter, the deceased returned home and consumed poison, leading to her death. 6.

At this stage, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that there was no instigation or proximate cause cannot be accepted in a superficial manner. The allegations, prima facie, indicate a direct and immediate sequence of events, where the humiliation and threats allegedly extended by the accused persons preceded the act of suicide. Whether such acts amount to abetment in the strict legal sense is a matter to be examined during trial; however, at the stage of anticipatory bail, the Court is only required to see whether there exists a prima facie case and whether custodial interrogation is necessary. The role attributed to the petitioner is not peripheral, rather he is specifically named and is alleged to be part of the group which intercepted and threatened the deceased. The argument that the act of the deceased was impulsive does not, at this stage, dilute the gravity of the allegations, particularly when the act is alleged to have immediately followed the incident in question.

7.

The plea of parity with the co-accused who has been granted anticipatory bail is also not tenable, as the said co-accused was attributed a different and lesser role, besides being a woman with a minor child. The petitioner, on the other hand, is alleged to be one of the principal perpetrators of the act leading to the suicide. 8.

Keeping in view the serious nature of allegations, the specific role attributed to the petitioner, and the requirement of custodial interrogation, this Court is not inclined to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

9.

Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. 10.

However, it is made clear that any observations made herein are only for the purpose of deciding the present bail petition and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (NEERJA K. KALSON) 17.04.2026 JUDGE Satyawan Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No