CRM-M-58232 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 109 GAURAV SHARMA STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. CORAM: HON’BLE M Present: Mr. Mr. Varun Kumar Jaglan, Advocate Ms. Guramrit Kaur, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Dinesh Sharma, Advo Mr. Nikhil Mittal, Advocate for the complainant. KIRTI SINGH CRM-11727-2026 This is an application for placing on record Annexures P and for exemption from filing certified and true typed cop 2. Heard. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and Annexures P exceptions. Exemption sought for is granted. MAIN CASE 1. Apprehending his arrest in case FIR No.298 dated 12.09. registered under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station Kharar, District SAS Nagar, petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 482 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking pre 58232-2025 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-58232 DATE OF DECISION: GAURAV SHARMA Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Mr. Ashish Soi, Advocate (through VC) Mr. Varun Kumar Jaglan, Advocate Ms. Guramrit Kaur, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Dinesh Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Nikhil Mittal, Advocate for the complainant. KIRTI SINGH, J. (ORAL) 2026 This is an application for placing on record Annexures P and for exemption from filing certified and true typed cop Heard. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and Annexures P-9 to P-11 are taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Exemption sought for is granted. Apprehending his arrest in case FIR No.298 dated 12.09. registered under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station Kharar, District SAS Nagar, petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 482 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking pre IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 58232-2025 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 06.04.2026 … Petitioner ... Respondents KIRTI SINGH (through VC) and Mr. Varun Kumar Jaglan, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Guramrit Kaur, DAG, Punjab. cate and Mr. Nikhil Mittal, Advocate for the complainant. This is an application for placing on record Annexures P-9 to P- and for exemption from filing certified and true typed copies thereof. Heard. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is are taken on record subject to all just Apprehending his arrest in case FIR No.298 dated 12.09.2025 registered under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station Kharar, District SAS Nagar, petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 482 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking pre-arrest bail. -11 Heard. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is are taken on record subject to all just 2025 registered under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station Kharar, District SAS Nagar, petitioner has filed the instant petition under SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.04.07 17:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-58232 2. The tran 3. Learned c petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that even as per the contents of the FIR, there is no instigation on the part of the petitioner to force th had solemnized love marriage, whereafter even a protection them. He further submits that ingredients of Section 306 IPC (108 BNS) are not fulfilled. In support of his contentions, learned the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Punjab, 2017(1) RCR note to implicate the present petitioner to the offence. 58232-2025 (O&M) 2 The translated version of the FIR is reproduced below: “That the contents of the FIR are, "Statement of Varun Kumar s/o Sh. Praveen Kumar r/o Hno. 275 Balwant Rai Colony Vishkarma Mohalla Yamuna Nagar, P.S. Yamuna Nagar, Dist. Yamuna Nagar aged 29 years Mob no. 7015744189 stated that I am the resident of the above address and I do shuttering work, we are three brothers and sisters. Elder brother is Neeraj Kumar, and I am younger to him and youngest one was sister M.pharma at Chandigarh University, Gharuan, My sister got married to Gaurav Sharma s/o Kaushal Sharma r/o Gandhi Market, Yamuna Nagar in the year 2023 and it was a love marriage. He has a girl child born from this wedlock. After this they used to fight with her inside sister returned to our house. In regards to this, we filed a case and matter was referred for mediation but Gaurav was not appearing for it. Due to this, my sister was in depression. Now my sister again came to the Chandigarh Univ in January 2025 to study. She consumed poisonous substance after being fed up of her husband. She got unconscious. The university staff picked her up and brought her to Wellmade Tri City Hospital Gharuan and informed us through phone. We also reached there. During the treatment, my sister lost her life. My sister claimed her own life by consuming poison after being fed up with her husband Gaurav. Legal action be taken as against him. I have given the statement it is correct." Learned counsel for the petitioner petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that even as per the contents of the FIR, there is no instigation on the part of the petitioner to force the deceased to commit suicide. had solemnized love marriage, whereafter even a protection He further submits that ingredients of Section 306 IPC (108 BNS) are not fulfilled. In support of his contentions, learned the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Punjab, 2017(1) RCR (Criminal) 118. He further submits that there is no suicide note to implicate the present petitioner to the offence. slated version of the FIR is reproduced below: “That the contents of the FIR are, "Statement of Varun Kumar s/o Sh. Praveen Kumar r/o Hno. 275 Balwant Rai Colony Vishkarma Mohalla Yamuna Nagar, P.S. Yamuna Nagar, Dist. Yamuna Nagar aged 29 years Mob no. 7015744189 stated that I am the resident of the above address and I do shuttering work, we are three brothers and sisters. Elder brother is Neeraj Kumar, and I am younger to him and youngest one was sister xxxxx. My sister was studying Chandigarh University, Gharuan, My sister got married to Gaurav Sharma s/o Kaushal Sharma r/o Gandhi Market, Yamuna Nagar in the year 2023 and it was a love marriage. He has a girl child born from this wedlock. After this they used to fight with her inside the house. After this my sister returned to our house. In regards to this, we filed a case and matter was referred for mediation but Gaurav was not appearing for it. Due to this, my sister was in depression. Now my sister again came to the Chandigarh University, Gharuan in January 2025 to study. She consumed poisonous substance after being fed up of her husband. She got unconscious. The university staff picked her up and brought her to Wellmade Tri City Hospital Gharuan and informed us through phone. We so reached there. During the treatment, my sister lost her life. My sister claimed her own life by consuming poison after being fed up with her husband Gaurav. Legal action be taken as against him. I have given the statement it is correct." ounsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that even as per the contents of the FIR, there is no instigation on e deceased to commit suicide. In fact, the two had solemnized love marriage, whereafter even a protection petition was filed by He further submits that ingredients of Section 306 IPC (108 BNS) are not fulfilled. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurcharan Singh v. State of . He further submits that there is no suicide note to implicate the present petitioner to the offence. He further submits that the “That the contents of the FIR are, "Statement of Varun Kumar s/o Sh. Praveen Kumar r/o Hno. 275 Balwant Rai Colony Vishkarma Mohalla Yamuna Nagar, P.S. Yamuna Nagar, Dist. Yamuna Nagar aged 29 years Mob no. 7015744189 stated that I am the resident of the above address and I do shuttering work, we are three brothers and sisters. Elder brother is Neeraj Kumar, and I am younger to him and . My sister was studying Chandigarh University, Gharuan, My sister got married to Gaurav Sharma s/o Kaushal Sharma r/o Gandhi Market, Yamuna Nagar in the year 2023 and it was a love marriage. He has a girl child born from this wedlock. After the house. After this my sister returned to our house. In regards to this, we filed a case and matter was referred for mediation but Gaurav was not appearing for it. Due to this, my sister was in depression. Now ersity, Gharuan in January 2025 to study. She consumed poisonous substance after being fed up of her husband. She got unconscious. The university staff picked her up and brought her to Wellmade Tri City Hospital Gharuan and informed us through phone. We so reached there. During the treatment, my sister lost her life. My sister claimed her own life by consuming poison after being fed up with her husband Gaurav. Legal action be taken submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that even as per the contents of the FIR, there is no instigation on In fact, the two was filed by He further submits that ingredients of Section 306 IPC (108 BNS) are not counsel has placed reliance upon Gurcharan Singh v. State of . He further submits that there is no suicide ubmits that the SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.04.07 17:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-58232 petitioner is not involved in any other case and investigation. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel and counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. They state that the petitioner was actively involved in the offence. submitted that the deceased died within 2 ½ years of the marriage and even during the subsistence of her marriage, she was constantly subjected to atrocities. In fact, previously also a complaint had been made against the present petitioner and at that time, three injuries were found to have been inflicted upon the sister of the complainant as per the MLR. dated 12.06.2025 Police, Yamuna Nagar husband. After completion of enquiry upon the complaint of the deceased, an FIR No.717 dated 01.11.2025 Police Station Yamuna Nagar City, District Yamuna Nagar against her in physical and mental torture and harassing her for bringing no dowry. the petitioner does not deserve to be granted the relief of an 5. Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 6. At this juncture, a gainful reference can also be made to the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case reported in 2022 custodial interrogation of the accused is not required does not, by itself, constitute a ground for grant of bail. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads thus:- 58232-2025 (O&M) 3 petitioner is not involved in any other case and Per contra, learned State counsel and counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the oner. They state that the petitioner was actively involved in the offence. the deceased died within 2 ½ years of the marriage and even during the subsistence of her marriage, she was constantly subjected to atrocities. In fact, usly also a complaint had been made against the present petitioner and at that time, three injuries were found to have been inflicted upon the sister of the complainant as per the MLR. It is further submitted 12.06.2025 was also moved by the deceased before the S Yamuna Nagar regarding physical and mental harassment caused by her After completion of enquiry upon the complaint of the deceased, an FIR No.717 dated 01.11.2025, under Sections 406, 498 Police Station Yamuna Nagar City, District Yamuna Nagar against her in physical and mental torture and harassing her for bringing no dowry. the petitioner does not deserve to be granted the relief of an Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. At this juncture, a gainful reference can also be made to the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case **** V. Arun Kumar CK & Anr. reported in 2022 Live Law SC 870, wherein it was held that merely because the custodial interrogation of the accused is not required does not, by itself, constitute a ground for grant of bail. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads petitioner is not involved in any other case and has already joined the Per contra, learned State counsel and counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the oner. They state that the petitioner was actively involved in the offence. It the deceased died within 2 ½ years of the marriage and even during the subsistence of her marriage, she was constantly subjected to atrocities. In fact, usly also a complaint had been made against the present petitioner and at that time, three injuries were found to have been inflicted upon the sister of the submitted that a complaint No.4390 moved by the deceased before the Superintendent of regarding physical and mental harassment caused by her After completion of enquiry upon the complaint of the deceased, an FIR 498-A IPC, 1860 was registered at Police Station Yamuna Nagar City, District Yamuna Nagar against her in-laws for physical and mental torture and harassing her for bringing no dowry. Therefore, the petitioner does not deserve to be granted the relief of anticipatory bail. Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. At this juncture, a gainful reference can also be made to the judgment **** V. Arun Kumar CK & Anr. Live Law SC 870, wherein it was held that merely because the custodial interrogation of the accused is not required does not, by itself, constitute a ground for grant of bail. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads the Per contra, learned State counsel and counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the It is the deceased died within 2 ½ years of the marriage and even during the subsistence of her marriage, she was constantly subjected to atrocities. In fact, usly also a complaint had been made against the present petitioner and at that time, three injuries were found to have been inflicted upon the sister of the that a complaint No.4390 uperintendent of regarding physical and mental harassment caused by her After completion of enquiry upon the complaint of the deceased, an FIR gistered at laws for Therefore, Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. At this juncture, a gainful reference can also be made to the judgment **** V. Arun Kumar CK & Anr., Live Law SC 870, wherein it was held that merely because the custodial interrogation of the accused is not required does not, by itself, constitute a ground for grant of bail. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.04.07 17:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-58232 7. Reverting to the case in hand, this Court is of the considered view that the allegations against the petitioner are grave and serious in nature. years of her marriage, leaving behind a minor daughter. record reveals e petitioner and his family members 12.06.2025 before the Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar, wherein the deceased herself narrated the a FIR No.717 dated 01.11.2025 under Sections 406 and 498 Therefore, prima facie allegedly drove the victim unfortunate death 8. The position of law is settled that the concession of anticipatory b which is an extraordinary relief, cannot be granted on the mere asking of the petitioner. There must be an existence of exceptional circumstances in their favour 58232-2025 (O&M) 4 “There appears to be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial relevant aspects to be considered while deciding an application seeking may be many cases in which the custodial accused may not be required, but that does not prima facie case against the accused should be overlooked and he should be granted anticipatory bail. first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline custodial interrogation. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail.” Reverting to the case in hand, prima facie this Court is of the considered view that the allegations against the petitioner are grave and serious in nature. It is not in dispute that the deceased died within 2½ years of her marriage, leaving behind a minor daughter. record reveals earlier complaints of maltreatment had petitioner and his family members, including Complaint No.4390 dated 12.06.2025 before the Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar, wherein the deceased herself narrated the atrocities committed against her, p FIR No.717 dated 01.11.2025 under Sections 406 and 498 prima facie a pattern of cruelty and harassment allegedly drove the victim to consume poison, death. The position of law is settled that the concession of anticipatory b which is an extraordinary relief, cannot be granted on the mere asking of the petitioner. There must be an existence of exceptional circumstances in their favour a serious misconception of law that if no for custodial interrogation is made out by the alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked and he should be granted anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence looked into along with the severity of the interrogation can be one of the grounds interrogation. However, even if custodial required or necessitated, by itself, cannot grant anticipatory bail.” rima facie upon perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that the allegations against the petitioner are It is not in dispute that the deceased died within 2½ years of her marriage, leaving behind a minor daughter. The material placed on arlier complaints of maltreatment had also been lodged against the including Complaint No.4390 dated 12.06.2025 before the Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar, wherein the trocities committed against her, pursuant to which FIR No.717 dated 01.11.2025 under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC was registered pattern of cruelty and harassment is revealed, which to consume poison, leading to her untimely and The position of law is settled that the concession of anticipatory bail, which is an extraordinary relief, cannot be granted on the mere asking of the petitioner. There must be an existence of exceptional circumstances in their favour a serious misconception of law that if no for custodial interrogation is made out by the alone would be a good ground to grant interrogation can be one of the with other grounds anticipatory bail. There interrogation of the mean that the ored or The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence looked into along with the severity of the interrogation can be one of the grounds interrogation. However, even if custodial required or necessitated, by itself, cannot upon perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that the allegations against the petitioner are It is not in dispute that the deceased died within 2½ The material placed on against the including Complaint No.4390 dated 12.06.2025 before the Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar, wherein the which, registered. is revealed, which untimely and ail, which is an extraordinary relief, cannot be granted on the mere asking of the petitioner. There must be an existence of exceptional circumstances in their favour SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.04.07 17:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-58232 so as to warrant the Court to extend this concession. Regrettably, there is nothing in the pleadings made on behalf of the petitioner, so as to make out the existence of any such grounds so as to make him entitled for grant of concession of anticipatory bail. 9. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for grant of anticipatory bail. The allegations against the petitioner are serious and supported by facie material, and no exceptional circumstances are made out to warrant the exercise of discretionary j 10. Accordingly, the instant petition stands dismissed. 11. Needless to say that nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also s 06.04.2026 SwarnjitS Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 58232-2025 (O&M) 5 so as to warrant the Court to extend this concession. Regrettably, there is nothing e pleadings made on behalf of the petitioner, so as to make out the existence of any such grounds so as to make him entitled for grant of concession of anticipatory bail. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered the petitioner has failed to make out a case for grant of anticipatory bail. The allegations against the petitioner are serious and supported by material, and no exceptional circumstances are made out to warrant the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction in his favour. Accordingly, the instant petition stands dismissed. Needless to say that nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also s ( Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable : so as to warrant the Court to extend this concession. Regrettably, there is nothing e pleadings made on behalf of the petitioner, so as to make out the existence of any such grounds so as to make him entitled for grant of concession of In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered the petitioner has failed to make out a case for grant of anticipatory bail. The allegations against the petitioner are serious and supported by prima material, and no exceptional circumstances are made out to warrant the urisdiction in his favour. Accordingly, the instant petition stands dismissed. Needless to say that nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE Yes / No Yes / No so as to warrant the Court to extend this concession. Regrettably, there is nothing e pleadings made on behalf of the petitioner, so as to make out the existence of any such grounds so as to make him entitled for grant of concession of In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered the petitioner has failed to make out a case for grant of anticipatory prima material, and no exceptional circumstances are made out to warrant the Needless to say that nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed tands disposed of. SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.04.07 17:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document