Anticipatory bail is a discretionary remedy not granted as a matter of right, especially in serious offenses where custodial interrogation is essential for recovering electronic evidence and ensuring an effective investigation into allegations of harassment and criminal intimidation.

JUDGMENT :

NEERJA K. KALSON , J.

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No. 027 dated 21.01.2026, under Sections 308(2) and 78 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, registered at Police Station Machhiwara, District Ludhiana, Punjab.

2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution, as reflected from the contents of the FIR and the record, is that the complainant, Hardeep Singh, moved an application before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Khanna, alleging that the petitioner, Parwinder Singh, had been harassing and blackmailing the prosecutrix, who has been residing in the United Kingdom for the past about one and a half years. It is alleged that the petitioner used to send abusive and objectionable messages, extend threats to kill her, and continuously harass her despite her refusal to marry him. It is further alleged that despite the petitioner having shifted from Machhiwara Sahib, he continued his acts, due to which the prosecutrix was compelled to leave her employment, thereby affecting her livelihood. The complainant was regularly informed about the said acts, and it is also alleged that the family members of the petitioner supported his conduct and refused to desist when approached.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present FIR, which is stated to be false, frivolous, concocted, fabricated and far from the truth. It is submitted that the petitioner and the prosecutrix were in a consensual relationship and that the families of both parties had initially agreed to their marriage, which was also finalised, and shagun had been given. It is further submitted that, however, due to certain family differences and misunderstandings, the relationship was called off without proper communication with the petitioner. It is also contended that the petitioner’s family later came to know that the prosecutrix had already contracted marriage with Harpreet Singh on 13.02.2022, which fact was allegedly concealed from the petitioner and his family, and that thereafter, the prosecutrix and her husband had gone abroad on a spouse visa. It is thus argued that the complainant has deliberately exaggerated and fabricated the facts so as to give a criminal colour to what is essentially a personal and civil dispute arising out of a broken relationship and engagement.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel along with learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the present petition and submitted that during the course of investigation, substantial incriminating material has come on record. It is contended that the son of the complainant produced a pen drive containing videos and call recordings evidencing the petitioner’s acts of blackmail and use of abusive language towards the prosecutrix. It is further submitted that WhatsApp messages placed on record clearly demonstrate that the petitioner had been threatening the prosecutrix to send money and was blackmailing her by threatening to make her videos viral in case of non- payment, thereby subjecting her to intimidation and mental harassment. It is also contended that after refusal of marriage by the prosecutrix, the petitioner continued to harass, blackmail and threaten her by sending abusive and filthy messages and by extending threats to kill her, even while she was residing in the United Kingdom, thereby seriously affecting her daily life.

5. It is further submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to recover and examine the mobil