← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/61024/2024disposed of

Monu v. State Of Punjab And ANR

2026-03-12Ms. Justice Kirti Singh3 pages

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (105) Date of Decision: 12.3.2026 Monu ......Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH

Present:

Mr. C.S.Jattana, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Guramrit Kaur, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Himanshu Chhabra, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

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

Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS'), is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in case FIR No. 13 dated 23.10.2024, under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC, registered at Women Police Station Sangrur.

2.

Vide order dated 05.12.2024, the petitioner was directed to join investigation. The said order is reproduced hereinafter:- "x x x x Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that respondent No.2 is suffering from Lucoria and the petitioner has provided due care and love to his wife-respondent No.2. A compromise has already been arrived at between the parties and as per the compromise, the petitioner was to pay Rs.4.25 lacs to respondent No.2 towards full and final settlement. It is further contended that the entire dispute is due to disease of respondent

-2No.2. Moreover, the maximum sentence provided for the offences, under which the FIR (supra) is registered, is upto 03 years. Even notice under Section 35 of BNSS [erstwhile Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.')] has not been served upon the petitioner. As such, he is entitled to anticipatory bail in view of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Md. Asfak Alam Vs. State of Jharkhand and another, 2023 (3) RCR (Criminal) 754. It is further contended that there is no possibility of the petitioner fleeing from justice and pretrial detention would cause irreparable loss, mental agony, embarrassment and humiliation to the petitioner as well his entire family.

Notice of motion for 17.12.2024.

Keeping in view the ratio of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 2 SCC 427, Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51, Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors., 2010 SCC OnLine SC 1375 and Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565, the petitioner is directed to appear before Investigating Officer within a period of one week from today and thereafter, as directed by the Investigating Officer. In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be admitted to interim bail on furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Investigating/Arresting Officer and the petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation. The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation/Arresting Officer and abide by the conditions as provided under Section 482(2) of BNSS (erstwhile Section 438(2) of Cr.P.C.).

If the Arresting Officer does not permit the petitioner to join the investigation, he would appear before learned Illaqa Magistrate, who would then summon the Arresting Officer and direct him to join the petitioner in the investigation, in terms of the order of this Court.

Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion by this Court and learned trial Court shall decide the same on its own merits, strictly in accordance with law."

-33.

Learned State counsel on instructions from the investigating officer concerned, submits that in compliance of order dated 05.12.2024, the petitioner has joined the investigation. It is further submitted that in the present case challan was presented and the petitioner has furnished bail bonds before the learned trial Court on 15.4.2025. 4.

Learned counsel for the complainant has not been able to controvert the aforesaid submission, or establish that the petitioner has violated any terms and conditions imposed upon him by the learned trial Court while releasing the petitioner on furnishing of his bail bonds. 5.

In view of the fact that challan in the present case also stands presented and the petitioner has already furnished bail bonds before the learned trial Court, no further order is required to be passed. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

7.

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

(KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE March 12, 2026 Gurpreet Singh Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No