JUDGMENT :

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J.

These 04 petitions have been filed under Section 483(3) read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.2 vide order dated 05.08.2025 (dated 22.08.2025 in CRM-M-51969-2025) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, in FIR bearing No.153 dated 04.07.2025, registered under Section(s) 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station Shahkot, District Jalandhar, are being decided by a common order, as they arise out of the same FIR.

2 For the facility of reference, the facts are, however, being extracted from CRM-M-52022-2025; Sukhjit Kaur Vs. State of Punjab and another.

3 The aforesaid FIR has been registered on the statement of the petitioner herein. It has been alleged that Sukhwinder Singh son of Malkit Singh the petitioner’s husband, was employed as a clerk with Indian Overseas Bank at Nakodar and had advanced a sum of Rs.16,67,000/- to Sarabjit Kaur (respondent No.2 herein) for the purpose of construction of her house. It is further alleged that, despite repeated demands, the said amount was not returned, and that whenever the petitioner’s husband visited the residence of Sarabjit Kaur, she, along with her sister Harbant Kaur, subjected him to humiliation and insult. It is further averred that one Ashok Kumar, son of Mahendra Ram, had also borrowed a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- out of which only a part payment was made, leaving an outstanding amount of Rs.88,000/-. Similarly, Zora Singh son of Buta Singh also borrowed some money out of which a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- remained unpaid. It is further alleged that Ravinder Singh alias Ravi, son of Zora Singh, had stood as a guarantor for the repayment of the said amount. It is the case of the petitioner that, on account of the failure of the aforesaid persons to return the monies advanced, and the consequent financial distress and harassment, her husband, Sukhwinder Singh, was driven to commit suicide on 03.07.2025.

4 Counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent No.2 was granted the concession of anticipatory bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, vide order dated 29.07.2025 which such order was subsequently made absolute vide order dated 05.08.2025. The present petition has thus been filed challenging the order granting bail to the accused-respondent No.2. It is argued that while granting the concession of anticipatory bail, the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, recorded a finding that the dispute between the parties appeared to be of a financial nature, which would entail civil liabilities and that the question as to whether the same would amount to abetment of suicide or not, would fall for determination during the course of trial. It is contended that said finding is legally not tenable. where an order granting bail is vitiated by illegality or perversity, the same is amenable to challenge before the High Court and the cancellation thereof can be duly sought in accordance with law. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Brij Nandan Jaiswal Vs. Munna @ Munna Jaiswal and another, reported as AIR 2009 Supreme Court 1021

5 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent–State, as well as learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, submit that the accused have been granted bail and have joined the investigation. It is pointed out that: -

a. Ravinder Singh @ Ravi, son of Surjit Singh, was arrested on 05.07.2025 and was remanded to judicial custody at Central Jail, Kapurthala and was subsequently released on bail.

b. Ashok Kumar, son of Mohinder Ram, was granted interim anticipatory bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, on 09.07.2025; he joined the investigation on 12.07.2025 and his anticipatory bail was thereafter made absolute vide order dated 05.08.2025.

c. Harbant Kaur, wife of Harjinder Singh, was granted interim anticipatory bail by the Additional Sessi