CRM-M-19327-2025 and another connected case -1- 234 (2 cases) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:- 18.07.2025 (1) CRM-M-19327-2025 Gurdev Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and Anr. ...Respondents (2) CRM-M-19416-2025 Inderjit Singh and Anr. ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and Anr. ...Respondents CORAM:-HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI Present: Mr. Maneesh Bali, Advocate for the petitioner in both cases. Ms. Manjot Kaur, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Lokesh Vohra, Advocate for the complainant/respondent No.2 in both cases. AMARJOT BHATTI, J.(Oral) 1. The petitioner – Gurdev Singh has filed CRM-M-19327-2025 and petitioners Inderjit Singh and Paramjit Kaur have filed CRM-M- 19416-2025 under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 0037 dated 17.02.2025 (Annexure P-1), under Section 498-A, 406 of IPC registered at Police Station Phillaur, District Jalandhar Rural, Punjab. These petitions have arisen out of same FIR, therefore, both petitions are taken up together for disposal. 2. As per facts of case, complainant Sarabjeet Kaur filed written SUNIL DEVI 2025.07.22 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-19327-2025 and another connected case -2- complaint against her husband and other members of in-laws family alleging that her marriage was solemnized with Gurdev Singh on 17.11.2021. Her parents had given gold ornaments, wrist watch, shagun and other articles at the time of marriage. She was constantly taunted in the matrimonial home for not giving dowry articles as per their status. Many a times, she was beaten up. Under compelled circumstances, her parents gave gold ornaments on two occasions i.e. on 25.12.2021 and 03.06.2022. For some time, their behaviour remained cordial. The dispute again started and on 14.10.2022 her father took her in the parental house. Her husband also started residing with her. On 17.03.2023 at about 11:30 o’clock he was alone in the house. Her family had gone to attend a marriage in the village. In their absence her husband took away cash of Rs.1,00,000/-, one gold chain of 02 tolas and left the house. Thereafter, he started residing with his family. It is further pointed out that earlier her in- laws family had claimed that they were having 12 acres of land but at present they are in debt. With these allegations, present FIR was registered. 3. Learned counsel representing petitioner(s) in both cases took the stand that all allegations levelled against them regarding maltreatment and misappropriation of dowry articles are false and without any basis. They are not in possession of dowry articles. It is conceded that petitioner(s) are under heavy debt and they are surviving by doing labour work. The complainant had left the matrimonial home on her own. They will join the investigation as and when required. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel representing State assisted by SUNIL DEVI 2025.07.22 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-19327-2025 and another connected case -3- learned counsel representing complainant categorically stated that the complainant was maltreated in the matrimonial home time and again. They have misappropriated her dowry articles. Her husband also indulged in stealing money and gold chain. In order to effect recovery, their custodial interrogation is required. 5. I have considered the aforesaid factual position. The FIR is registered on the written complaint of complainant-wife. She has narrated various incidents of maltreatment which took place in the matrimonial home. It is pointed out that gold ornaments were given from time to time at the instance of her husband and members of in-laws family. All gold ornaments are misappropriated. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for petitioner alleged that they are not in possession of any dowry article. There are serious allegations of theft of money and gold chain against petitioner Gurdev Singh. Recovery of dowry is material to complete the investigation. Considering the aforesaid factual position, custodial interrogation of petitioner(s) is required. Therefore, I do not find a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail in favour of petitioner(s) Gurdev Singh, Inderjit Singh and Paramjit Kaur and their anticipatory bail petitions are accordingly declined. 6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, in both cases, stand disposed of accordingly as well. 7. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case mentioned above. 18.07.2025 (AMARJOT BHATTI) Sunil Devi JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No SUNIL DEVI 2025.07.22 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document