1 CRM-M-33414-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.289 CRM-M-33414-2026 Date of Decision: 18.08.2026 GURJIT SINGH ....Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI Present:- Mr. Ajayinder Singh Dhillon, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Aiman J. Chishti, AAG, Punjab for respondent No.1-State. ***** ARCHANA PURI, J. (Oral) Mr. Arshdeep Singh Brar, Advocate, has made appearance on behalf of respondent No.2-complainant and filed Power of Attorney, which is taken on record. The petitioner has filed the present petition, thereby making prayer for grant of anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No.55 dated 29.04.2026, registered under Sections 108 and 3(5) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (corresponding Sections 306 and 34 Indian Penal Code), at Police Station Smalsar, District Moga. HIMANSHU VATS 2026.08.18 18:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 2 CRM-M-33414-2026 In pursuance of notice issued, respondent No.1 made appearance through State counsel. Even, respondent No.2-complainant has made appearance through the counsel. Counsel for the parties heard. The requisite FIR was got registered, at the instance of Ram Singh, son of Gurmukh Singh, who is the father of the deceased. As per the version of the prosecution, the marriage of deceased-Kiranjeet Kaur had taken place with Gurwinder Singh, son of Jagraj Singh, 8 years ago. She was having one son, aged about 7 years. On 27.04.2026, at around 1:00 p.m., Gurjit Singh, the present petitioner, along with his wife, Paramjit Kaur, had gone to the matrimonial home of Kiranjeet Kaur and caused harassment to her and also extended threats. It is also stated in the complaint filed by the father of the deceased that Paramjit Kaur used to suspect about Kiranjeet Kaur to be having an affair with Gurjit Singh, the present petitioner. When Paramjit Kaur came to know about the same, she, along with her husband, Gurjit Singh, had gone to the house of Kiranjeet Kaur and had extended threats to her. Being humiliated, the daughter of the complainant had taken the extreme step and her dead body was found hanging on the ceiling fan, when her son Harmanjot Singh, had come from school. It is now submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that false case has been got registered against the petitioner. Further, it is submitted that there was no reason for the petitioner, as well as his wife-Paramjit Kaur, to visit the house of Kiranjeet Kaur, or humiliate her, as asserted. In fact, they had never extended any kind of threats to the life of Kiranjeet Kaur. HIMANSHU VATS 2026.08.18 18:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 3 CRM-M-33414-2026 On the other hand, learned State Counsel, as well as, counsel for respondent No.2, have resisted the claim for grant of anticipatory bail. In fact, they submit that there are clear and specific allegations about the petitioner and his wife having gone to the matrimonial home of the deceased-Kiranjeet Kaur and having extended threats to her life, on account of her having affair with Gurjit Singh, the present petitioner. Also, it is submitted that the deceased was residing at her matrimonial home and the accusations were raised against her in the matrimonial home, as a result whereof, she felt humiliated and therefore, she had chosen to end her life. In view of the aforesaid fact situation, when there are clear and specific allegations against the conduct of the present petitioner and his wife, having implored the deceased-Kiranjit Kaur, on account of her alleged affair with the petitioner, the matter requires deep probe and as such, the custodial interrogation is of course required to know about any love affair between the two and the visit of the petitioner and extending of threats to the deceased, while going to her matrimonial home. So far as, the other accused i.e. Paramjit Kaur, is concerned, it is submitted by the counsel that she has been granted bail by the trial Court. Copy of the order dated 19.06.2026, passed by the trial Court, has been supplied in the Court today, which is taken on record. Perusal of the said order reveals that it was the regular bail granted to the wife of the petitioner, by the Court concerned and on this account, there is distinction of facts. Therefore, the parity cannot, in any manner, be claimed, qua the petitioner, on account of Paramjit Kaur, having granted regular bail. HIMANSHU VATS 2026.08.18 18:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 4 CRM-M-33414-2026 Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, as spelt out aforesaid and necessity for further probe to be conducted, vis-a-vis the shady conduct of the petitioner, no case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, the present petition is hereby dismissed. (ARCHANA PURI) 18.08.2026 JUDGE Himanshu Vats Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : Yes/No HIMANSHU VATS 2026.08.18 18:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document