Mukesh Kumar v. State Of Punjab
1
!"#!$%&%"'()
)
MUKESH KUMAR ......Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER .....Respondents ( *+,) ,- ,
Present:
Mr. Dinesh Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Aakanksha Gupta, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Rahul Garg, Advocate for Mr. Naveen Batra, Advocate for respondent No.2.
**** - , .) + 1.
Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.78 dated 12.10.2025, under Section 108 of BNS, 2023, registered at Police Station Hajipur, District Hoshiarpur. 2.
The contents of FIR are reproduced hereinafter.
! "
#$% & #$'($)
* +)
* + %
''%
% !, - .
/ % . + 1
2 "
% " . + 1 0 2
" #% % -
" 3% ! 4
%
% %
2
5+%
%
5 !
+% 2 6% 7778$8$9 (:83%
! , / 7:3$ !, !
; ':'8 !,
* 0 !
% + +
% !* % / %*+
%
% . +1 0 2 % !, +%
+! *4
% + ! ! , ; , <)
= <); , ((793)
;<) ;*
2 "7$78$8$9> 3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present FIR on the statement of the complainant with the allegations that the petitioner abetted the suicide of her daughter. It is submitted that in fact, the relationship between the petitioner and his wife (since deceased) was very cordial. In fact, at the time of alleged incident, the petitioner was engaged in the construction work of his house. He had even called his wife in the afternoon of the fateful day. However, later in the day he received calls from his children, who informed him that their mother had locked herself in a room, hearing which he rushed home. In between, he also contacted his neighbour, who is a doctor, at 03:12 p.m., and requested him to check in on the situation. Parallely, he made a call to his motherinlaw, apprising her of the situation. However, after the unfortunate passing away of his wife, false allegations were levelled against the petitioner himself. There is no material on record, in the form of a suicide
3 note or otherwise, to substantiate the allegations levelled against the petitioner.
4.
learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submit that there are specific and serious allegations against the petitioner. They state that the petitioner was actively involved in the commission of the offence. 5.
Learned State counsel while placing reliance upon the status report dated 18.11.2025 submits that it is the specific allegation against the petitioner that he used to subject his wife to beatings under the influence of liquor, which issue was even taken to the panchayat of the village multiple times, wherebefore the petitioner used to admit his guilt each time, apologize to the daughter of the complainant, and would promise to keep her nicely. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner, whenever asked by the deceased to mend his ways, subjected her to cruelty, disturbed from which, the deceased took the unfortunate step and ended her life. As per the post mortem report of the deceased, the cause of death has been ascertained as asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging. The petitioner, whom the investigating agency has been trying to apprehend, has been evading the process of law.
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
% 3'?00
%
* 2 % +
@
0 "A0 !B+ -- C;$878@7D00#E(D A % + & $3 2 @ Dthough 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. * 4 2
%0
=
0
+%
% 2
% + % + = +0
% %
;%
+ ! % 0 %
+ 0 )
2
@D % ! > 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
5 offence so alleged is also one of the considerations before a Court at the time of deciding a bail petition.
10.
Adverting to the case in hand,
grave and serious allegations, of subjecting his wife to harassment and cruelty, has been levelled against the petitioner, which conduct of his is also stated to have been brought up in the village panchayat on numerous occasions. It is the allegation that the constant cruelty meted out to the deceased, purportedly led her to take her own life. Given the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not deem it a fit case to extend the extraordinary concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, whose custodial interrogation might be required to unearth the true dimension of the alleged unfortunate occurrence.
11.
Accordingly, the instant petition stands dismissed. 12.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
- , "/!01!2.
34!&3 53! 3!2&6! 7%'892! &"'!: ( !&9"
53! 3!22!6"2 14!
( !&9"