Balkaran Singh Alias Raju Singh (Panch) v. State Of Punjab And Another
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 22.01.2026 Balkaran Singh alias Raju Singh (Panch) ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and Another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY ***** Present :
***** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) 1.
1. Prayer in this petition under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.36, dated 04.07.2025, under Sections 108 of BNS, 2023, registered at Police Station GRP Bathinda, District Government Railway Police, Revenue District Bathinda.
2. Notice of motion.
3. Mr. G.S. Dhaliwal, AAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and Mr. A.S. Mann, Advocate accepts notice and filed his memo of appearance on behalf of respondent No.2, which is taken on record. Both the parties have been heard and material on file has been perused.
4. The present case was registered on the basis of statement given to the police by Jagtar Singh, son of Boria Singh with the allegations that on 03.07.2025 his son Satpal Singh was consuming drugs in the company of one Mandeep Singh and this fact came to the notice of Balkaran Singh (petitioner), who is the uncle of said Mandeep Singh as well as Panch of the Gram Panchayat. Thereafter, Balkaran Singh called him
-2at the shop of Goldy Doctor, where he humiliated him and he apologized for his conduct and requested Balkaran Singh not to talk to anyone else in this regard. However, in the evening, Balkaran Singh again called him in the Panchayat and insulted him. On 04.07.2025, at 9:00 am, Balkaran Singh again called him in the village Panchayat and humiliated him. On account of humiliation meted out to him, his son Satpal Singh felt harassed and he committed suicide by jumping before the train and he sought action against Balkaran Singh.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even if the allegations levelled in the FIR are taken to be true as a gospel truth, no offence under Section 108 BNS is made out, as no humiliation or maltreatment was meted-out to the deceased. The petitioner had only spoken to his father and told him about the fact that his son was consuming some narcotic substance and such an act cannot be termed as instigating someone to commit suicide. Learned counsel further contended that petitioner is ready to join the investigation and to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by the Court. Nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner and benefit of anticipatory bail be extended in favour of the petitioner.
6. On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the bail and argued that petitioner has committed a heinous offence and in view of the gravity of the offence he does not deserve the concession of bail.
7. Adjourned to 08.12.2025 for filing status report. Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation and in the event of her arrest, she shall be admitted to adinterim bail on furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer, subject to the following conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of the BNSS [erstwhile Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.]:- i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court;
iv) such other condition as may be imposed under subsection (3) of Section 480, as if the bail were granted under that section.
-3- (AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE 22.01.2026 M.Kamra Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes / No Whether reportable :
Yes / No