Gurwinder Singh Alias Kala v. State Of Punjab
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Sr. No.208 Case No. : CRM-M-51569-2025 Decided On : November 13, 2025 Gurwinder Singh alias Kala ....
Petitioner vs.
State of Punjab ....
Respondent CORAM :
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR.
* * * Present :
Mr. Randhir Singh Thind, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. P. S. Pandher, AAG, Punjab.
* * * SUKHVINDER KAUR , J.
:
Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.131 dated 19.08.2025, under Sections 108 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, registered at Police Station Urban Estate, District Patiala.
The brief facts of the case are that the aforesaid FIR was got registered by complainant Jaspreet Singh, wherein he stated that marriage of his younger brother namely Dilpreet Singh was solemnized on 28.05.2025 with Himani Syal. However, the marriage did not go well and said Himani Syal and her maternal uncle Gurwinder Singh used to mentally harass Dilpreet Singh. It was further stated by the complainant that his brother used to tell him that he was very fed up with their behaviour as they were
also demanding Rs.3 lacs from him and asking him to get the property transferred in their name. The complainant further alleged that on 16.08.2025, his brother Dilpreet Singh went from home, but did not return and on 19.08.2025, his dead body was found from Khanouri Bhakhra Canal with the help of divers. The complainant alleged that his brother committed suicide due to harassment at the hands of his wife Himani Syal, father-in-law Suraj Kumar and maternal uncle Gurwinder Singh alias Kala. On the basis of this statement, FIR in question was registered. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that no offence is made out against the petitioner and he has been falsely involved in the present case. He is not related to co-accused Himani Syal and Suraj Kumar.
No suicide note in the present case had been recovered so as to link the petitioner with the alleged occurrence. The petitioner had no knowledge about the dispute between the deceased and his wife. The petitioner has no criminal antecedents and his custodial interrogation is not required and no recovery is to be effected from him. He has, therefore, prayed that the petitioner be granted concession of anticipatory bail. Learned State counsel opposed the present bail petition while contending that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature as he had played an active role in harassing the deceased Dilpreet Singh, due to which, he committed suicide. So, his custodial interrogation is required for fair and proper investigation in this case and he does not deserve concession of anticipatory bail.
Heard.
Though it has been alleged in the FIR that the petitioner is maternal uncle of wife of the deceased but as per the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner was not related to wife of the deceased and her family and is not her maternal uncle. The deceased Dilpreet Singh was having matrimonial dispute with his wife Himani Syal and due to this, she was living at her parental house. As per the allegations, the petitioner along with Himani Syal had been harassing the deceased and demanding Rs.3 lacs from him and asking him to transfer the property in their names. But it is pertinent to note that the petitioner was not going to be the beneficiary, if any such amount would have been given by the deceased.
No overt act at the instance of the petitioner has been disclosed as to in which manner he had abetted or instigated the commission of suicide by the deceased. It has also not been disclosed that if he was having any role in the matrimonial life of deceased and his wife. No suicide not had been recovered in the present case. As such, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for any purpose and nothing is to be recovered from him. So, no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars.
Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. In the event of arrest, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, on furnishing bail/surety bonds, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer, subject to the conditions, as provided under Section 482(2) of BNSS. It will be open for the Investigating Officer to call the petitioner to join investigation, if so required, by issuing a
written notice in this regard. The petitioner shall also abide by the conditions mentioned in Section 482(2) of the BNSS. However, nothing observed herein above shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The observations recorded above are only for the purpose of deciding the present bail petition. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of along with the present petition.
November 13, 2025 (SUKHVINDER KAUR) monika JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned ?
Yes/No.
Whether reportable ?
Yes/No.