High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/32689/2026allowed

Bipasha @ Ankita And ANR v. State Of Punjab

2026-06-30Mr. Justice Yashvir Singh Rathor4 pages

- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 30.06.2026 BIPASHA @ ANKITA AND ANR ...PETITIONERS

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR PRESENT: Mr. Shokeen Singh Verma, Advocate for the petitioners.

Ms. Niharika Sharma, AAG Punjab.

**** YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR , J. (Oral) 1.

Present petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.308 dated 19.12.2025, under Section 108 of BNS, 2023(erstwhile 306 of IPC), registered at Police Station City-1 Malerkotla, District Malerkotla.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned State counsel and have gone through the record. 3.

The present case was registered on the basis of complaint made to the police by Kamlesh Rani with the allegations that her son Gimanshu Shukla (since deceased) was married to petitioner No.1-Bipasha @ Ankita on 22.04.2025. After one month of the marriage, her daughter-in-law Bipasha started quarrelling with her and her son without any reason. Thereafter, she went to her parental home at Rajpura but upon persuasion, she returned. Howerver, she again left her matrimonial home after 20 days due to quarrels, where she has been residing since then. She often used to

- 2 - tell her son that she would not live with his mother and insisted that he should come and live with her at Rajpura, otherwise she would divorce him. Due to daily quarrels, her son remained mentally disturbed. On 09.12.2025, her son along with his neighbour Kartik went to Rajpura to bring her back, where, in the presence of Kartik, his wife Bipasha @ Ankita, mother-in-law (petitioner No.2), father-in-law Ram Magan, brother-in-law Rahul, sister-inlaw Beenu and her husband Saurav insulted him and turned him out of the house. Thereafter, her son became more disturbed and stopped interacting with anyone. During the night on 17.12.2025, her son became unwell and started vomiting on the next day. He was taken to the hospital and later on he died at about 2:00 P.M. The suicide note was also recovered from his laptop and same was handed over to the police and formal FIR was registered. Petitioners were arrested on 19.12.2025 and after completion of investigation, challan has been presented against the accused for trial. 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are in custody since 19.12.2025. Infact there were temperamental differences between the petitioner No.1 and the deceased and she had started residing separately. Even a petition under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act was filed for dissolution of marriage by way of mutual consent Annexure P-3, wherein an application was moved under Section 14 of Hindu Marriage Act for waiving of statutory period of one year before filing the petition. Learned counsel further contended that even if the allegations levelled in the FIR are taken as gospel truth, no offence under Section 108 of BNS, 2023 is made out as the necessary ingredients for the said offence are missing as there was no instigation or incitement on the part of petitioners

- 3 - which could drive the deceased to commit suicide. Petitioners are in custody since 19.12.2025. The trial is likely to take long time to conclude. Coaccused namely Ram Magan has already been released on bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.05.2026 in CRM-M-213302026. Challan has already been presented after completion of investigation. The trial will take a long time to conclude and no useful purpose will thus be served by detaining the petitioners in custody anymore and they may be released on bail.

On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the bail and argued that the offence committed by the petitioners is serious in nature and they had created such circumstances which compelled the deceased to take the extreme step of committing suicide and he was being constantly harassed and petitioners thus do not deserve concession of bail. 6.

From the allegations levelled in the FIR and the material collected by the police, it will be a debatable question during the trial as to whether the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 108 of BNS are made out or not as instigation or incitement is a necessary ingredient which could compel a person to commit suicide. In case, some quarrel had taken place with the deceased, it cannot be termed as an act of instigation or compelling a person to commit suicide. Even a petition under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act was jointly instituted for dissolution of marriage as they were not able to live together. The petitioners are in custody since 19.12.2025. The challan has already presented. Co-accused namely Ram Magan has already been released on bail vide order dated 14.05.2026 in CRM-M-21330-2026. The trial will take a long time to conclude and no

- 4 - useful purpose will be served by detaining the petitioners in custody anymore and they deserve to be released on bail. 7.

In view of the above discussion and without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be released on regular bail on their furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) JUDGE 30.06.2026 Vishal Vardhan Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No