CRM M-46934 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 230 CRM M-46934 of 2026 Date of Decision: 26.08.2026 Bhavya Kumar ….Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SHEKHAWAT Present : Mr. Inder Preet Singh Kohli, Advocate and Mr. Sidharth Maini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M.S. Bajwa, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Harlove Singh Rajput, Advocate for the complainant. N.S.SHEKHAWAT , J. (Oral) 1. At very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 87 of BNS 2023 (corresponding Section 366 of IPC) has not been mentioned in the head note and prayer clause of the petition and the same may be ordered to be added. Learned counsel for the AMIT RANA 2026.08.27 15:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM M-46934 of 2026 -2- petitioner is permitted to carry out the necessary corrections in the head note as well as prayer clause in the Court itself. 2. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, with a prayer to grant of regular bail in a criminal case arising out of FIR No. 196 dated 24.06.2026, registered under Sections 140(1) (corresponding to Section 364 IPC), 3(5) (corresponding to Section 34 IPC), 317(2) (corresponding to Section 411 IPC) and Section 61(2) and 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 120-B and 366 IPC, added subsequently), at Police Station City Kharar, District SAS Nagar, Mohali. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and victim were known to each other for the last one and a half year and had close and intimate relationship with each other. Even, the victim was regularly communicating with the petitioner telephonically as well as by using other modes of communication. He further contends that even from the photographs (Annexure P-2), it is apparent that the victim was also aware of the fact that the petitioner has already married and is having a daughter from his marriage. Even learned counsel also submits that he is in possession of CCTV footage to show that the victim had been visiting the house of the petitioner and there was no question of any forcible abduction by the petitioner. Learned counsel has also referred to various screenshots (Annexure P- AMIT RANA 2026.08.27 15:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM M-46934 of 2026 -3- 3), from the CCTV footage to contend that even the petitioner and victim had been visiting different places in the market and were moving freely with each other. Apart from that, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the photographs (Annexure P-4), and marriage certificate (Annexure P-5), to contend that even the alleged victim had married the petitioner in Pashupati Nath Shiva Temple, MDC, Panchkula. The petitioner was wrongly arrested by the police in the present case on 24th June 2026 and the investigation is complete in the present case. He further refers to another FIR No. 52 dated 22nd April 2026 under Sections 376, 294 and 506 Police Station Phase 8, SAS Nagar Mohali to contend that the victim is in habit of registering false cases against other persons as well and her conduct clearly shows that the present FIR has been got registered by her only with the view to victimize the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that there are serious allegations against the petitioner and the petitioner is not entitled for the concession of regular bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. In the present case, the petitioner was arrested on 24th June 2026 and is in custody for the last almost two months. Even, after completion of investigation, challan has already been presented AMIT RANA 2026.08.27 15:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM M-46934 of 2026 -4- against the petitioner. Moreover, the prosecution is yet to lead evidence regarding alleged forcible abduction of the victim by the petitioner before the trial Court. 7. In view of the above, without commenting any further on the merits, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/CJM concerned. 26.08.2026 (N.S.SHEKHAWAT) amit rana JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No AMIT RANA 2026.08.27 15:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document