Lucky @ Tejinder Kumar v. State Of Punjab
1
!"#$"%&'&#()** LUCKY @ TEJINDER KUMAR ......Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER .....Respondents
) +, -*-
. -
Present:
Mr. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Luvinder Sofat, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
Ms. Ramandeep Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Varinder Bara, Advocate for respondent No.2.
**** . -
/*, 1.
Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS'), is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.123 dated 19.08.2025, under Sections 108 and 61(2) of BNS, 2023, registered at Police Station Dhariwal, District Gurdaspur.
2.
The contents of FIR are reproduced hereinafter.
!"#$$$$$ % & %
'( )* + , $$$$- ." -
- /!
(( -
* 0 + ( - - /1 -$$$$$- 2 2-
34( + ( - - ##-
2
- - 4 4
5 ##-64 - $$$$$ $$$$$$- 7 ( ( 4 (
, ( ( (
8 / !/! - ##-64 - $$$$$$ ##-$$$$$&
-&
(
, % 4 - )( ' - , $$$$$%
$$$$$ & (-$$$$$ ((
-64 - $$$$$ ##-$$$$$
-( 3(( ( 4 4 %& -
9#
940% ' - ':1
/ !/! ;
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is the brotherinlaw of the deceased, has been falsely implicated in the present FIR on the statement of the father of the deceased, wherein vague and baseless allegations have been levelled. It is submitted that the petitioner along with his family members was residing separately from the deceased. Further, no suicide note was recovered in the instant case. As such, there is no evidence to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. Rather, the deceased used to face issues related to mental health, for which she had also taken treatment from two different medical institutions, which fact is evinced from the outpatient tickets annexed at Annexure P3. 4.
Per contra, learned State counsel and the learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that serious and specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. It is submitted that the deceased
3 had disclosed to the complainant on 18.08.2025, that there were arguments in her matrimonial home due to her objection to the illicit relation of her husband with another woman, because of which she had been given severe beatings by her husband, sistersinlaw, and the present petitioner, who then snatched her son away from her and threw her out of her matrimonial home. It was due to the acts of cruelty meted out to the daughter of the complainant that she jumped into the canal and committed suicide. There is an immediate nexus between the commission of the alleged acts by the petitioner and the unfortunate death of the daughter of the complainant, which as per her post mortem report, was due to antemortem drowning. 5.
Learned State counsel further submits that the investigation in the instant case is still underway, for which the custody of the petitioner is required to ascertain the extent of his involvement in the present case. On a pointed query made in that regard, learned State counsel on instructions submits that the petitioner and the deceased used to reside in a shared household.
6.
Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
7.
In Srikant Upadhyay and others vs. State of Bihar and another, 2024 (INSC) 202 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: % &
- &-
( -
( & &-
(
$( % - ( ( - (
". <
< $( ( - $ $( % ) (
( &
4 ( = < *'><46 &
?3
!/1/=1@<<A @ > - & ( !" )=( @though in many cases it was held that bail is said to be a rule, it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is the rule. % C ) < (
( $ ( - < &
(
(
) ( & $ ( & &< ( ( ( ((
&-
- ( 3 --
( (( & 4$
( -
< - ( & ( - < ( #
$ $( ) ( =@
4( ;
8.
In Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2018) 7 SCC 731, the Constitution Bench reaffirmed that while considering applications for anticipatory bail, Courts should consider factors such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the specific facts of the case.
9.
The general rule, put tersely, may be of bail, no jail; however, a just exception may be taken where there are circumstances which might thwart the course of justice. The antecedents of the accused or the probability of the accused fleeing, intimidating witnesses or tampering with the evidence, weigh in heavy before the Court when dealing with a petition for the grant of anticipatory bail. Trite to say that gravity of offence so alleged is also one of the considerations before a Court at the time of deciding a bail petition.
5 10.
Adverting to the case in hand, ( grave allegations of harassment and cruelty have been levelled against the inlaws of the deceased including the petitioner. It is the specific statement of the complainant that on 18.08.2025, his daughter had made a distress call to him, narrating that she had been beaten and thereafter ousted from her matrimonial home by her husband, sistersinlaw, and the present petitioner. On the very next day, the complainant was informed of the unfortunate death of his daughter caused due to her jumping into a canal. Under such circumstances, where a life has been lost, allegedly due to the acts of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, whose custodial interrogation might be required to unearth the true dimension of the alleged offence. 11.
Accordingly, the instant petition stands dismissed. 12.
Needless to say that nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. 13.
However, in case the petitioner surrenders before the learned trial Court within a period of two weeks, and moves an application for grant of regular bail, then the same shall be decided by the learned trial Court expeditiously, preferably within a period of one week, in accordance with law.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
. -
#0"12"3/ !45"'4 64"!4"3'7" 8&(9:3" '#(";
) "':# 64"!4"33"7#3! 25"
) "':#