IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.38730 of 2026 Rashpal Singh ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ... Respondent 1. The date when the judgment is reserved 26.08.2026 2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 27.08.2026 3. The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 27.08.2026 4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced Full 5. The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and reasons thereof Not applicable CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Ajay Pal Singh Rehan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab, for the respondent-State. Mr. C.S. Bakshi, Advocate (through V.C.) Mr. Aryan Sharma, Advocate, Ms. Mallika, Advocate and Mr. Gurjeet Singh, Advocate, for the complainant. *** MANISHA BATRA , J. 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short MANJU 2026.08.27 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.38730 of 2026 -2- ‘BNSS’) seeking anticipatory bail in the FIR mentioned below:- FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 168 15.06.2026 Shahkot, District Jalandhar Rural 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNS”) 2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement recorded by the complainant Kulwant Kaur alleging that her son Amanpreet Singh was married with accused Navdeep Kaur on 05.03.2025. Shortly after the marriage, both Amanpreet Singh and Navdeep Kaur went to New Zealand. There was matrimonial discord between them due to which Amanpreet Singh had filed a petition for divorce in New Zealand which was pending. Navdeep Kaur through her father Rashpal Singh i.e. the present petitioner had got an FIR bearing No.74 dated 04.04.2026 registered against her husband Harbhajan Singh, her children and herself. Both her husband and herself were in New Zealand at that time. They had returned on 10.06.2026. Her husband was under a lot of stress due to the registration of the FIR against him. He consumed some poisonous substance on 14.06.2026 due to the harassment meted out to him at the hands of Navdeep Kaur and her family members which included the present petitioner. He was taken to hospital but had been declared to be brought dead. He had left a suicide note. 3. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings have been initiated and are underway. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner who is father of Navdeep Kaur, daughter-in-law of the deceased/complainant moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail which was dismissed by MANJU 2026.08.27 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.38730 of 2026 -3- the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar vide order dated 06.07.2026. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. The ingredients for commission of offence punishable under Section 108 of BNS are not at all attracted qua him. The petitioner did not have any meeting/physical contact or any telephonic conversation with the deceased after 13.03.2026. The victim had gone to New Zealand and immediately after his return to India, he had committed suicide. There was no abetment of any kind on the part of the petitioner for committing suicide by the victim. He is ready to join investigation. His custodial interrogation is not required. No recovery is to be effected from him. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. The victim had left a suicide note wherein the name of the petitioner was mentioned. His antecedents are also not clean. There is no exceptional and extraordinary ground for grant of pre arrest bail. It is, therefore, argued that the petitioner does not deserve to be extended benefit of anticipatory bail. 6. This Court has considered the rival submissions. 7. The petitioner who is father of the daughter-in-law of the complainant/victim, is alleged to have harassed the victim by lodging FIR MANJU 2026.08.27 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.38730 of 2026 -4- against him and are further alleged to have abetted suicide by the victim. The victim had left a suicide note before his death. A copy of the translated version of that suicide note has been placed on record as Annexure P-2 and a perusal of the same reveals that the victim had levelled specific allegations that the petitioner along with his family members and relatives had been extending threats to kill the victim and his family members. For conducting thorough and proper investigation in the matter, his custodial interrogation is must. In case, the same is denied to the investigation agency, that shall leave many glaring loopholes and gaps, adversely affecting the investigation. More so, even if for the sake of arguments, it is considered that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not must, still, the well settled proposition of law even otherwise is that non requirement of custodial interrogation alone cannot be considered to be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail as observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar C.K. and another : 2022 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 977. The well settled proposition of law is that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses and likelihood of fleeing justice. The Courts are required to be guided by consideration such as nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail or refuse it and it is a matter of discretion to grant or not to grant bail. Taking MANJU 2026.08.27 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.38730 of 2026 -5- into consideration the nature of the evidence as levelled against the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that no exceptional and sparing circumstances warranting exercise of powers for grant of anticipatory bail by this Court are existing. As such, the petition does not deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 8. It is, however, clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (MANISHA BATRA) 27.08.2026 JUDGE manju Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MANJU 2026.08.27 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh