Harmanjit Singh v. State Of Punjab

CRM-M-70759-2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH (107) CRM-M-70759-2025 Date of Decision:- 23.12.2025 Harmanjit Singh ......Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ......Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN ****

Present:

Mr. A.P.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Japjot Singh, AAG, Punjab.

ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral) 1.

The present petition has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 76 dated 21.09.2025 under Sections 108, 80 and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023, registered at Police Station Jhander, Amritsar Rural (Annexure P-1).

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the deceased and the petitioner were in a consensual love affair and had solemnized their marriage against the wishes of their parents and had also sought protection from this Court by filing CRWP-7251-2021. Learned counsel further submits that no complaint has been lodged against the petitioner or his family for the last three years, however, all of a sudden, the present FIR has been registered on the ground that the complainants were informed that the wife of the petitioner has consumed certain poisonous substances despite the fact that it was the petitioner who had taken her to the hospital. It is further submitted that the act was a result of undue PARUL 2025.12.26 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CRM-M-70759-2025 pressure exerted by the complainant's family on the petitioner's wife to leave the petitioner, moreover, there is no suicide note. 3.

However, learned State counsel submits that the unnatural death occurred within seven years of the marriage, and the specific allegations has been levelled that the death is caused due to consumption of poisonous substances, therefore, the petitioner cannot be granted any concession. Learned State counsel further submits that the antecedents of the petitioner has also not clean as he is involved in two other FIRs, one under the NDPS Act and the other under the Arms Act. 4.

Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. 5.

Considering the seriousness of the allegations, coupled with the fact that it is premature to return any finding at this stage, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is of extreme importance to unearth the truth, particularly in view of the fact that the deceased, who was the wife of the petitioner, died an unnatural death within seven years of marriage in the matrimonial home.

6.

In light of the above, this Court does not find any ground to grant the extra ordinary concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, hence, the present petition is dismissed.

(ALOK JAIN) JUDGE 23.12.2025 Parul Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether Reportable:- Yes/No PARUL 2025.12.26 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document