CRM-M-49531 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT (104) LUKHY ALIAS LUCKY STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: Present: ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral) 1. anticipatory bail Sections 85 and 316(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station Kartarpur, District Jalandhar Rural. 2. allegations levelled in the complainant was duly provided the deteriorating undergo surgery saved and expired on 06.02.2025. made in the FIR that complainant was taken to the factually incorrect. R 49531-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LUKHY ALIAS LUCKY Versus STATE OF PUNJAB HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN **** Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sahil Choudhary, AAG, Punjab. *** ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral) The present petition has been preferred seeking the grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.159 dated 14.07.2025, registered under Sections 85 and 316(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station Kartarpur, District Jalandhar Rural. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire allegations levelled in the FIR are false and baseless. Counsel submits that the complainant was duly provided the medical deteriorating condition of the unborn surgery, during which the unborn child saved and expired on 06.02.2025. Counsel made in the FIR that complainant was taken to the factually incorrect. Rather, it was the petitioner who initially took the -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-49531-2025 Date of Decision:- 05.09.2025 ……Petitioner ……Respondent ALOK JAIN Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sahil Choudhary, AAG, Punjab. The present petition has been preferred seeking the grant of in case FIR No.159 dated 14.07.2025, registered under Sections 85 and 316(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire the FIR are false and baseless. Counsel submits that medical assistance, however, due to unborn child, the complainant had to , during which the unborn child unfortunately could not be further argues that the assertion made in the FIR that complainant was taken to the hospital by her sister is ather, it was the petitioner who initially took the - 05.09.2025 ……Petitioner ……Respondent The present petition has been preferred seeking the grant of in case FIR No.159 dated 14.07.2025, registered under Sections 85 and 316(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire the FIR are false and baseless. Counsel submits that due to child, the complainant had to could not be assertion sister is ather, it was the petitioner who initially took the MANJU 2025.09.09 09:42 I agree to specified portions of this document CRM-M-49531 complainant to the hospital, and another hospital her. 3. petitioner is that the petitioner of the Hindu Marriage Act on 28.04.2025, and the present FIR is a retaliatory outburst of the same. 4. 5. of the State and has pointed ou for the petitioner are incorrect. Admittedly, the complainant was left unattended, which compelled her to call her sister for assistance in the hospital. Serious allegations have been levelled against the petitione happens to be the husband, suggesting that it was due to his conduct which results ultimately caused petition under Section 9 of the lodging of the FIR complaint was lodged on 21.03.2025 of the Hindu Marriage Act the proceeding under the HMA were initiated as an afterthought attempt to create a defence after the filing of the complaint registration of FIR 6. 49531-2025 complainant to the hospital, and subsequently another hospital, different from the one where the petitioner had The second contention advanced petitioner is that the petitioner has already filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 28.04.2025, and the present FIR is a retaliatory outburst of the same. Notice of motion. Mr. Sahil Choudhary, AAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the State and has pointed out that both averments made by the counsel for the petitioner are incorrect. Admittedly, the complainant was left unattended, which compelled her to call her sister for assistance in the hospital. Serious allegations have been levelled against the petitione happens to be the husband, suggesting that it was due to his which results in rupture of premature child’s intestines, caused the child’s death. With respect to the contention that petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act the lodging of the FIR to which learned State counsel clarifies that the complaint was lodged on 21.03.2025 while the said of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed on 28.04.2025, proceeding under the HMA were initiated as an afterthought attempt to create a defence after the filing of the complaint registration of FIR. Heard learned counsel for the parties. -2- subsequently her sister shifted her to from the one where the petitioner had first taken advanced by learned counsel for the lready filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 28.04.2025, and the present FIR is a Mr. Sahil Choudhary, AAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf t that both averments made by the counsel for the petitioner are incorrect. Admittedly, the complainant was left unattended, which compelled her to call her sister for assistance in the hospital. Serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner, who happens to be the husband, suggesting that it was due to his careless premature child’s intestines, which With respect to the contention that the the Hindu Marriage Act had been filed prior to to which learned State counsel clarifies that the while the said petition under Section 9 was filed on 28.04.2025, this clearly shows that proceeding under the HMA were initiated as an afterthought and is an attempt to create a defence after the filing of the complaint following the Heard learned counsel for the parties. - her sister shifted her to taken by learned counsel for the lready filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 28.04.2025, and the present FIR is a Mr. Sahil Choudhary, AAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf t that both averments made by the counsel for the petitioner are incorrect. Admittedly, the complainant was left unattended, which compelled her to call her sister for assistance in the r, who careless which the filed prior to to which learned State counsel clarifies that the petition under Section 9 that an following the MANJU 2025.09.09 09:42 I agree to specified portions of this document CRM-M-49531 7. under a bounded duty to take proper care of his pregnant wife. his conduct as alleged prima facie reflects 8. extend the concession of antici petition is dismissed. 05.09.2025 manju Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether Reportable: 49531-2025 The petitioner, being the husband of the complainant under a bounded duty to take proper care of his pregnant wife. conduct as alleged prima facie reflects otherwise. In view of the above, this Court does not the concession of anticipatory bail. petition is dismissed. Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether Reportable:- Yes/No -3- e husband of the complainant was under a bounded duty to take proper care of his pregnant wife. However, otherwise. this Court does not find any ground to Accordingly, the present (ALOK JAIN) JUDGE - was However, find any ground to Accordingly, the present MANJU 2025.09.09 09:42 I agree to specified portions of this document