Jagjit Singh v. State Of Punjab And Another
-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:- 15.01.2026 JAGJIT SINGH ....Petitioner Vs.
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER
...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI Present:- Mr. J.K. Singla, Advocate and Ms. Suman Rani, Advocates for the petitioner.
Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Lupil Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Amresh Singh Uggi, Advocate for respondent No.2.
***** AMARJOT BHATTI, J.
1.
Petitioner Jagjit Singh has filed instant petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.62 dated 23.06.2025 under Sections 85, 316 (2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 registered at Police Station Joga, District Mansa (Annexure P-1).
2.
As per facts of the case, complainant Khushpreet Kaur gave her statement that she is serving in health department. Her marriage was solemnized on 10.05.2024 with Jagjeet Singh. Initially, it was decided that no dowry will be given at the time of marriage but from the very first day her husband Jagjeet Singh and mother-in-law Jasbir Kaur started raising
-2demand for cash of Rs.15 lakh and a car. She was abused and beaten up. There was a threat that she will be turned out of the matrimonial home. Panchayats were also convened but the matter could not be resolved. Now she is turned out of the matrimonial home and is residing in her parental house. Complainant again got her statement recorded where she has mentioned about the dowry articles including gold ornaments which were given by her family members beyond their capacity. She has also mentioned about the various amounts which were transferred through Google Pay in the account of her husband.
3.
Learned counsel representing petitioner pointed out that efforts to effect compromise have failed. Present petitioner has joined the investigation and handed over the dowry articles on 20.11.2025. He is still ready to abide by the terms of bail order.
4.
Bail petition is opposed by learned counsel representing State of Punjab assisted by counsel for respondent No.2 by filing reply. It is pointed out that gold ornaments have not been recovered. However, recovery of other articles as per recovery memo (Annexure R-2) is confirmed. Since gold ornaments are yet to be recovered, therefore, petitioner is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail. 4.
I have considered the arguments and have gone through the record carefully. During the pendency of the case, matter was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre but the matter could not be resolved. Thereafter, present petitioner has handed over the dowry articles which are taken into police possession vide recovery memo dated 20.11.2025 (Annexure R-2). At present it is alleged that gold ornaments have not been
-3recovered. Perusal of FIR shows that initially it was alleged that family members had decided to have simple marriage. In the supplementary statement, complainant has given detail of various articles given at the time of marriage including gold ornaments. During the pendency of present bail petition, respondent No.2 has not placed on record the bills regarding purchase of gold ornaments nor any photographs are produced showing giving of gold ornaments at the time of marriage. In-case any gold ornaments are given or the same are misappropriated it is subject matter of trial. Since substantial dowry articles are recovered, no purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars. Therefore, considering the aforesaid factual position, anticipatory bail petition filed by petitioner Jagjit Singh is allowed. He be not arrested.
In case of his arrest, he be released on bail to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer concerned, subject to condition that petitioner will join investigation as and when required. He will not tamper with or interfere with investigation and will not leave country without prior permission as provided under Section 482 (2) of BNSS, 2023.
(AMARJOT BHATTI) JUDGE 15.01.2026 s