JUDGMENT :

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J.

1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.308 dated 19.12.2025 registered under Sections 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station City-1 Malerkotla, District Malerkotla.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that as per the prosecution, the son of the complainant Gimanshu Shukla-deceased had committed suicide, due to harassment and torture by the petitioner and other co-accused.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no concern with the demise of the deceased Gimanshu Shukla. He further contends that the petitioner is the brother-in-law (sadoo) of the deceased and he has been roped in the FIR only because of his close relationship with Bipasha @ Ankita (wife of the deceased). He submits that there was matrimonial dispute between the deceased and his wife and the petitioner has nothing to do with it. He further submits that a complaint was filed by the wife of the deceased alleging cruelty and demand of dowry. However later, they filed for divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act and the complaint was withdrawn. He further submits that the last interaction between the petitioner and the deceased took place on 09.12.2025 and the deceased committed suicide on 17.12.2025, i.e. after a gap of 8 days, hence, there is no proximity of the petitioner with the alleged suicide of the deceased. He argued that even otherwise, the allegations as entailed in the FIR do not satisfy the ingredients of Section 108 of BNS. He further argued that no specific overact has been attributed to the present petitioner, which amounts to abetment of suicide. Moreover, the petitioner has clean antecedents as he is not involved in any other case and nothing is to be recovered from him. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency.

4. After registration of the FIR, investigation has been initiated and is under way. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner had moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail which has been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Malerkotla, vide order dated 06.01.2026.

5. Notice of motion.

6. Learned State counsel, who has appeared on advance notice of the petition, has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature and he has actively participated in the crime. He argued that the petitioner has been specifically named in the FIR. He further argued that due to mental harassment and torture by the petitioner and his family members, the deceased had committed suicide. He further argued that the deceased has left a suicide note naming the petitioner and his family members responsible for his death. He further submits that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for fair and proper investigation in the matter and for effecting the arrest of other co-accused. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

7. Learned counsel for the complainant has adopted the submissions made by learned State counsel and while opposing the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, has contended that the petitioner has played an active role in the crime. He argued that the deceased was being continuously harassed by the petitioner and his family members and left with no option, the deceased committed suicide. Thus, he does not deserve the concession of bail.

8. Heard.

9. In the present case, the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR. The deceased had left the suicide note in which name of the petitioner figured and the allegations against him are specific and serious in nature and as such, offence under Section 108 of BNS is made out again