Hafiz Ur Rehman Khan v. State Of Punjab

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (208) CRM-M-33475-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 07.8.2025 Hafiz Ur Rehman Khan ......Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH

Present:

Mr. Mohd. Yousaf, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Aakanksha Gupta, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Mohan Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the complainant.

**** KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL) 1.

Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 47 dated 24.5.2025, under Sections 316(2) and 85 of BNS, 2023, registered at Police Station Women Cell, District Jalandhar.

2.

Vide order dated 27.6.2025, the petitioner was directed to join investigation. The said order is reproduced hereinafter:- "Counsel for the petitioner submits that FIR is an outcome of a matrimonial dispute and petitioner, who is the father-in-law of the complainant, has been falsely implicated. Issue notice of motion to the respondent. On asking of the Court, Mr. Kanav Singla, AAG, Punjab, accepts notice. List on 07.08.2025. Petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on 08.07.2025 at 11.00 A.M. at Police Station P.S. Women Cell, District Jalandhar, and join the investigation and would appear as and when called by the Investigating Officer. In the event of arrest, he shall be admitted to

-2interim bail on furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. He shall also abide by the conditions as specified under Section 482, BNSS." 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present FIR pertains to a matrimonial dispute and the petitioner, who is the father-in-law of the complainant, has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has also been submitted that now during the pendency of the present petition, a compromise has been effected between the son of the petitioner, who is the co-accused in the present FIR and the complainant and all the dowry articles have been returned to the complainant. He further submits that keeping in view the said compromise, this Court vide order of even date passed in CRM-M-33739-2025, granted anticipatory bail to co-accused Adil Khan. Therefore, it is prayed that keeping in view the above, besides the old age of the petitioner, he may also be considered for the grant of anticipatory bail. 4.

On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the instant petition and submits that in pursuance to the order dated 27.6.2025, the petitioner has failed to join investigation.

5.

Heard the rival submission of the learned counsels for the parties.

6.

The present FIR is an outcome of a matrimonial discord between the parties and the petitioner, aged 67 years, is the father-in-law of the complainant. The matrimonial dispute has been amicably settled between the parties and all the dowry articles have been returned to the complainant by the accused. Moreover, vide order of even date passed in CRM-M33739-2025, the son of the petitioner has also been granted anticipatory bail by this Court. Therefore, keeping in view the above facts, as also the advanced age of the petitioner, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the

-3instant petition.

7.

Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to join the investigation within a week. In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail by the arresting/investigating officer on his furnishing bail/surety bonds subject to the satisfaction of the arresting/investigating officer, subject to the conditions as provided under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. It is directed that in case in future the petitioner is required to join the investigation process, thereupon he shall join the investigation and cooperate fully with the investigation process. 8.

It is made clear that this order should not be treated as "blanket" order. It will not be read granting the petitioner indefinite protection from arrest. It shall be confined to the FIR mentioned ibid and will not operate in respect of any other incident that involves commission of an offence. 9.

This order does not in any manner limit or restrict the rights or duties of the police or investigating agency to investigate into the charges against the petitioner.

10.

The accused-petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him or her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

11.

The accused-petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court.

12.

The accused-petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called by the police.

13.

It will be open to the police or the investigating agency to move to this Court for a direction under Section 483(3) of BNSS, 2023 (erstwhile Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C.) to arrest the accused-petitioner, in the event of

-4violation of any term, such as absconding, non-cooperating during investigation, evasion, intimidation or inducement to witnesses with a view to influence outcome of the investigation or trial. 14.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

(KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE August 07, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No