CRM-M-38833-2026 -1- (216) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-38833-2026 Date of decision :26.08.2026 INDERPREET SINGH @ BHOLU ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. G.S. Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Roshandeep Singh, Asstt. A.G., Punjab. **** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 is for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.07 dated 09.01.2025 registered under Section 108 of BNS, 2023 (Section 306 IPC) at Police Station Division No.7, District Ludhiana, Punjab. 2. The present FIR came to be registered at the instance of Baby wife of Sonu and the same reads as under:- “Statement of Baby wife of Sonu, son of Jeevan Lal, resident of house number B-9518, Gulchaman Street, Police Station Division No. 3, Ludhiana, at present resident of tenant of landlord Pratap Singh, house number 7046, Street No. 1, Vishakrama Nagar, Tajpur Road, near Kapil's Mill, Ludhiana, age 40 years, mobile number 62835-45539, States that I am a resident of the above address and I work as a maid servant in the house. I have 02 children, a girl named Muskan, aged about 16 years, a younger boy named JITESH LAL 2026.08.27 11:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-38833-2026 -2- Varun, age about 15 years, who is not studying due to family constraints. My husband, Sonu, used to drive a three-wheeler on rent, which made it very difficult for me to earn money for the family, due to which I myself used to help my husband by working. My husband was also sick, due to which we, the whole family, were very worried. Due to illness, I used to pay the rent of the house. The family told Sonu that you should arrange money somewhere so that your medicine and house rent can be paid. My family said that no one should take money from you like this, no one has to help us. I said that take money on interest and give it to me and we and our daughter Shanti also working and we will return those borrowed amount. we will pay off the debt. My family took Rs. 15,000 rupees on interest from Bholu who is living in our neighborhood about 5-6 months ago and we started our house circle. My family used to earn Rs. 400-500 rupees every day and bring it, of which my son used to pay 200 rupees every day to Bholu. We gave the money for about 5-6 months. So I told my family Sonu that you should talk to Bholu, how much more money do you want to take? My family talked to Bholu and he said that your all money is yet to be paid. You are paying interest. When my husband came home, he was very depressed at that time, which is why he did not tell me. I also talked to Bholu, who told me that you did not come to take the money, your husband came, talk to him. I went home there on 07.01.2025. At night, my husband Sonu told me that I have to eat something and kill myself because Bholu has spoken very bad words to me and has threatened to kill me and you all. I told my husband that you should not take interest. I have to ask my employer for some money and you should also arrange the money somewhere. You should return his money. Why ruin the lives of the children by dying? At that time, my husband went to sleep without eating. On 08.01.2025, I made some bread and went to my work. My daughter Muskan went to her work. My son had gone to his JITESH LAL 2026.08.27 11:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-38833-2026 -3- aunt's house on Tibba Road. I had gone to work at my landlord's house. It was around 3:00 PM. I said to my land lord, "My husband, Sonu, is very depressed. Please give me some money so that I can get my husband treated." My landlord, Des Raj, told me, "Don't be nervous. We are with you." He told me to go home and bring him medicine. Then, when my landlord came. When Des Raj went home, he came back at around 03:10 PM and said, "Come with me, Sonu's condition is very bad." I went with him, so I went upstairs and saw that my husband had ended his life by hanging himself from the fan. I came downstairs and started crying loudly. The people of the neighborhood told me that it was around 11:00 AM, but someone was standing with Sonu and arguing. Sonu's face showed that he was in some trouble. After talking, he took a rope from his three-wheeler and took him to his room. All this happened due to Bholu threatening my husband Sonu for money. Legal action should be taken against Bholu. I have written this statement to you in the presence of my brother-in- law Baljinder Singh, son of Gurmail Singh, resident of village Chamenda, Ludhiana. I have heard and read it and it is correct. SD/i Baby.” 3. The counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. No specific allegation has been levelled against the petitioner. Even if the allegations are taken to be correct, mere demand of a loaned amount would not constitute abetment. The petitioner has not abetted the commission of suicide of the deceased nor instigated him to do so in any manner. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail. 4. An affidavit dated 25.08.2026 by way of an affidavit of Raj Kumar, PPS, Asstt. Commissioner of Police (East), Ludhiana has been JITESH LAL 2026.08.27 11:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-38833-2026 -4- filed on behalf of the State by the learned counsel for the State. The same is taken on record. While referring to the affidavit, he contends that it is not a mere simpliciter demand by the petitioner which has precipitated the deceased to commit suicide. In fact, the deceased was being repeatedly harassed and threatened with death as is apparent from a bare reading of the FIR. The said fact is further substantiated from the dying declaration recorded by the deceased in a diary. Therefore, continuous harassment or threatening to kill the deceased would certainly amount to abetment. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail and the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumitha Pradeep Vs. Arun Kumar C.K. & Anr. 2022 Live Law (SC) 870 held that merely because custodial interrogation was not required by itself could not be a ground to grant anticipatory bail. The first and the foremost thing the Court hearing the anticipatory bail application is to consider is the prima facie case against the accused. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:- “It may be true, as pointed out by learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1, that charge-sheet has already been filed. It will be unfair to presume on our part that the Investigating Officer does not require Respondent No.1 for custodial interrogation for the purpose of further investigation. JITESH LAL 2026.08.27 11:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-38833-2026 -5- Be that as it may, even assuming it a case where Respondent No.1 is not required for custodial interrogation, we are satisfied that the High Court ought not to have granted discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. We are dealing with a matter wherein the original complainant (appellant herein) has come before this Court praying that the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court to the accused should be cancelled. To put it in other words, the complainant says that the High Court wrongly exercised its discretion while granting anticipatory bail to the accused in a very serious crime like POCSO and, therefore, the order passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to the accused should be quashed and set aside. In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. 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 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 should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment. JITESH LAL 2026.08.27 11:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-38833-2026 -6- 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. 7. The relevant extract of the affidavit dated 25.08.2026 is as under:- “A Suicide Note was also written by the deceased on the page of a Small Diary in which the following wording was written in Hindi:- “I, Sonu am going to die. I had obtained money from Bholu and returned a lot but still he used to harass me. Dying because of Bholu”. Accordingly, FIR No.7 dated 09.01.2025, U/s 108 of BNS, P.S. Division No.7, Ludhiana (Annexure P-1) was registered against the petitioner.” 6. That role of the petitioner, evidence against petitioner, criminal antecedents of the petitioner, necessity of custodial interrogation as well as status of trial is given below:- A. ROLE OF THE PETITIONER:- The petitioner abetted the commission of suicide by the husband of the complainant and threatened to kill him and his family members as mentioned above. B. EVIDENCE AGAINST THE PETITIONER:- (i) In the FIR, there are direct and specific allegations against the petitioner. (ii) Suicide note written by the deceased on a page of a small diary. (iii) Post-Mortem Report of the deceased. C. CRIMINAL ANTECEDENTS OF THE PETITIONER: The petitioner is a habitual offender and apart from the present FIR (Annexure P-1), another FIR No.12 dated JITESH LAL 2026.08.27 11:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-38833-2026 -7- 14.04.2025, u/s 179, 180, 318(4), 338, 3(5), 61 (2) of BNS, Police Station Railway Barharwa, Sahibganj, Jharkhand, has also been register against the petitioner. In the said FIR, the petitioner is confined in Central Jail, Sahibganj, Jharkhand and after obtaining Production Warrants from the Ld. Area Magistrate, the petitioner will be brought to book. D. NECESSITY OF CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION Considering the gravity of offence and nature of allegations, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is very much required by the police. E.STATUS OF TRIAL Investigation is still pending. 7. That thus the petitioner abetted the commission of suicide by the husband of the complainant and threatened to kill him and his family members and the petitioner is a habitual offender as mentioned above. Thus considering the gravity of offence, the petitioner is not entitled for the concession of anticipatory bail which is an extraordinary relief and the same is granted only in exceptional cases.” 8. As per the allegations, the deceased availed a loan from the petitioner but despite paying a substantial amount, the petitioner was repeatedly threatening the deceased to pay more money. He also threatened to kill the deceased. Prima facie, the offence of abetment stands established. Further, the investigation is to be taken to its logical conclusion, for which the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is certainly necessary. 9. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petition. Therefore, the same stands dismissed. JITESH LAL 2026.08.27 11:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-38833-2026 -8- 10. However, the observations made hereinabove are only for the purposes of deciding this bail petition and the Trial Court is free to adjudicate upon the matter on the basis of the evidence led before it uninfluenced by any such observations made herein. (JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE 26.08.2026 JITESH Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No JITESH LAL 2026.08.27 11:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document