Harwinder Singh v. State Of Punjab

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (121) Date of Decision: 17.3.2026 Harwinder Singh ......Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH

Present:

Mr. Abnash Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Aakanksha Gupta, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Ashdeep Singh, Advocate for the complainant.

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

This is the second petition under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been invoked for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 52 dated 20.10.2024 under Section 108 of BNS, 2023 and later on added Section 85 of BNS, 2023 registered at Police Station Handesra, District S.A.S. Nagar.

2.

The translated version of the FIR is reproduced below:- "Copy of statement of_Baljit Singh S/oSawan Ram R/o Village Narainpur P.s Raipur Rani District Panchkula Haryana, aged about 62 years having mobile number 94163xxxxx. Stated that I am the resident of the above said address and I am an agriculturist by profession. I have 3 children out of which the eldest is xxxxxxx whose age is 36 years and younger to her is my son Lakhvir Singh and Jorawar Singh. Earlier my daughter was married to Dinesh Kumar R/o of Village Saha District Ambala but on account of him being an addict and as a result there was no child out of the said

-2wedlock and accordingly my daughter xxxxxxx got divorced from Dinesh Kumar. In the year 2018 she got married to Harwinder Singh S/o Bhag Singh R/o Village Basoli P. S Handesra. Harwinder Singh had been married previously and out of the said wedlock he had 2 children and his earlier wife had died. That at the time of marriage my daughter and my family had stated our wish that my daughter wished to have a child from the present wedlock and that Harwinder Singh had consented the same along with his family stating that they had no objection to my daughter giving birth to a child from the said wedlock. But sometime after the marriage Harwinder Singh started insisting to my daughter that she should take care of his 2 children from the earlier marriage namely Manjot Kaur and Damanpreet Singh and that she should not bear any child of her own.

That on the said account there used to be an altercation between my daughter and her husband and in-laws and we used to intervene and pacify both the parties. That on 18. 10. 2024, my daughter xxxxxxx along with Manjot Kaur had come to our village at Narainpur on account of the marriage of my niece, but yesterday on 19. 10. 2024 her husband Harwinder Singh and her father-in-law Bhag Singh called her on her phone and started quarrelling by saying that they were sitting at home hungry and both of you are enjoying the marriage and as such my daughter xxxxxxx along with Manjot Kaur went back to 19/10/24 Village Basoli on 19.10.2024.

That thereafter on yesterday night at about 8 pm my daughter xxxxxxx called me on my mobile number 941634xxxxx and told me that my husband is quarrelling with me and has assaulted me, at this I called Harwinder Singh's father who told me that Harwinder Singh has beaten his daughter Manjot Kaur and that xxxxxxx has sustained injury on account of intervention between the two. But today on 20.10.2024 my son-in-law Harwinder Singh called me and informed me that my daughter xxxxxxx has died in her matrimonial house. I immediately at 6.30 am along with my family members reached Village Basoli and saw that my daughter xxxxxxx had strangulated herself with her neck scalf by hanging and had committed suicide. That her dead body was lying on the bed and around her neck was a pink coloured Chunni.

-3ceiling fan and had thus ended her life. That my daughter had ended her life on account of the constant pressure, quarrel and assault of my son in law Harwinder Singh on her for not bearing a child. That action be taken against as per law against Harwinder Singh. I was coming along with my brother Randhir Singh for giving information at the police station when you met us on the way near the bus stand Handesra, where I got recorded my statement and heard the same to be true. Action be taken. Statement is correct." 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the petitioner is husband of the deceased and has been falsely implicated in the present case by the complainant, who is the father of the deceased, by leveling allegations that the petitioner did not want a child from the wedlock with the deceased and he used to quarrel with her for that reason, because of which she committed suicide. It is submitted that the marriage of the petitioner with the deceased was solemnized in the year 2018 and it was the second marriage of both the parties. The first wife of the petitioner had died leaving behind two children from their wedlock, whereas the deceased had no child from her previous marriage.

It is further submitted that the deceased was under depression as even after six years of the marriage with the petitioner, she was unable to bear a child, and committed suicide being disturbed from this fact. There is no cogent evidence on record to link the petitioner with the alleged offences, nor corroborative material on record to implicate the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has undergone an actual custody of 01 year, 04 months and 22 days and there is no other criminal case registered against him. 4.

Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. She states that specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioner that he did not want a child from his wedlock with the deceased, for which reason he

-4subjected the deceased to constant quarrels, physical and mental assault to such an extent that she was forced to end her life by committing suicide. It is also submitted that the a day prior to the unfortunate incident, the deceased had made a telephonic all to the complainant and informed him that the petitioner had assaulted her. It is also submitted that as per the post-mortem report, the cause of death was due to asphyxia due to hanging leading to cardiopulmonary arrest, which is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Moreover, the deceased died in her matrimonial home within 06 years of her marriage.

5.

Learned State counsel has filed custody certificate in Court today and the same is taken on record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone an actual custody of 01 years, 04 months and 22 days. The learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Jatinderpal Singh, submits that in the present case, charges were framed on 26.3.2025 and out of total 19 prosecution witnesses, 07 have been examined till date. She submits that in view of the serious allegations against the petitioner, he is not entitled to the concession of regular bail.

6.

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

7.

Adverting to the case in hand, it is observed that the marriage between both parties was solemnized in the year 2018. Admittedly, it was the second marriage of both the parties. The unfortunate death took place at the matrimonial home on 20.10.2024 i.e. within 06 years of the marriage. Prima facie, grave and serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. It has been alleged that the daughter of the complainant desired to have a child from the wedlock, whereas the petitioner was unwilling to fulfill this marital expectation. This discord allegedly culminated in

-5continuous cruelty and harassment, both physical and emotional, inflicted by the petitioner upon the deceased. The same is said to have been so severe that it ultimately compelled the deceased to end her life within a relatively short span of 06 years of the marriage.

8.

The petitioner has been specifically named in the FIR with direct allegations, including instances of physical assault, emotional torments and continuous harassment. Notably, it has also been brought to the attention of this Court that a day prior to the tragic incident, the deceased had even made a distress call to her father (complainant) narrating the atrocities that she was being subjected to by the petitioner. Such conduct, if proved, not only indicates extreme cruelty but also underscores the serious nature of the alleged offence(s).

9.

Nevertheless, given the seriousness of the allegations, including continuous cruelty and harassment which resulted in the extreme outcome, and the prima facie material on record, this Court is not inclined to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner, at this stage. 10.

Accordingly, the present petition is hereby dismissed. 11.

Needless to say that nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. 12.

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

(KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE March 17th, 2026 Gurpreet Singh Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No