IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT Ashu Kumar State of Punjab and another CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMARI Present: Mr. Jashandeep Singh Bains, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Punjab for respondent No.1. Mr. Gaurav Jain, Advocate, for the complainant RAMESH KUMARI, J. The present petition under Section 482 of Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in criminal case arising out of the First Information Report (FIR) detailed below: FIR No. 32 2. The marriage of the petitioner and respondent No.2 had been solemnized on 20.01.2010. Both petitioner and respondent No.2 are blessed with two children aged about 15 and 8 years, respectively. The allegations against the petitioner are that he used to taun giving sufficient dowry in the marriage. There are other allegations that CRM M No. 32915 of 2026 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M No. 32915 of 2026 Date of Decision: versus Punjab and another HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMARI Mr. Jashandeep Singh Bains, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Surinderjit Singh Nahar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for respondent No.1. Mr. Gaurav Jain, Advocate, for the complainant-respondent No.2. **** RAMESH KUMARI, J. The present petition under Section 482 of Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita-2023 (earlier Section 438 Cr.P.C.) is for grant of arrest bail to the petitioner in criminal case arising out of the First Information Report (FIR) detailed below:- Dated Sections 18.04.2026 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita-2023 (erstwhile Section 498-A IPC) The marriage of the petitioner and respondent No.2 had been solemnized on 20.01.2010. Both petitioner and respondent No.2 are blessed two children aged about 15 and 8 years, respectively. The allegations against the petitioner are that he used to taun giving sufficient dowry in the marriage. There are other allegations that 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CRM M No. 32915 of 2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 28.07.2026 …..Petitioner …..Respondents HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMARI Mr. Jashandeep Singh Bains, Advocate, for the petitioner. , Assistant Advocate General, respondent No.2. The present petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya 2023 (earlier Section 438 Cr.P.C.) is for grant of arrest bail to the petitioner in criminal case arising out of the First Police Station 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya 2023 (erstwhile Section Women Cell, District Patiala. The marriage of the petitioner and respondent No.2 had been solemnized on 20.01.2010. Both petitioner and respondent No.2 are blessed two children aged about 15 and 8 years, respectively. The allegations against the petitioner are that he used to taunt respondent No.2 for not giving sufficient dowry in the marriage. There are other allegations that CRM M No. 32915 of 2026 (O&M) 2 petitioner and respondent No.2 purchased a plot in Urban Estate, Patiala in the year 2021 after taken loan and constructed a house thereon in the year 2023. After constructing the said house, they shifted in the same. Further allegations against the present petitioner are that he is in illicit relations with Tarun Khanna and in order to marry with Tarun Khanna, had filed a divorce petition. Tarun Khanna had also filed a divorce petition against her husband Ritesh Khanna. Respondent No.2 also leveled allegations against other family members of the petitioner. 3. Status report by way of affidavit of Mandeep Kaur, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, PBI/Crime against Women and Children, District Patiala, has been filed on behalf of respondent No.1. 4. Learned State counsel placing reliance upon para-12 of the status report submits that the petitioner had joined the investigation on 08.06.2026 in compliance of the order dated 05.06.2026 passed by this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner has already withdrawn the divorce petition filed by him and placed on record a copy of the order dated 17.07.2026 passed by the Court of Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Patiala reflecting that the divorce petition filed by the petitioner has since been dismissed as withdrawn. 6. Learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No.2 submits that the divorce petition has been dismissed as withdrawn not unconditionally but at that stage as reflected from his statement incorporated in the order dated 17.07.2026, petitioner is likely to again file a divorce petition and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail. CRM M No. 32915 of 2026 (O&M) 3 7. During enquiry conducted by the police as mentioned in the status report, no sufficient material was found to substantiate the allegations against other family members of the petitioner. 8. Learned State counsel on instructions also submits that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for further investigation. 9. In view of the above, the petition is allowed and the interim order dated 05.06.2026 passed by this Court is made absolute. The petitioner shall continue to join the investigation, as and when called by the Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall also abide by the following conditions as specified under Section 482 (2) of B.N.S.S. (erstwhile section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.:- i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required to do so. ii) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to complainant/victim or any other person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him 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) that the petitioner shall also hand over his mobile phone to the investigating agency. 10. Any observations made hereinabove shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (RAMESH KUMARI) JUDGE 28.07.2026 ravinder Whether speaking/reasoned √Yes/No Whether reportable √Yes/No