IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Resham Singh ……Petitioner(s)

Versus State of Punjab ……Respondent(s)

Decided on : 03.02.2026 Date of uploading: 03.02.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. PKS Phoolka, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Adhiraj Singh, AAG, Punjab.

None for the complainant.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) for grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.61 dated 07.07.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 118(1), 115(2) of BNS 2023, at Police Station Rampura, District Bathinda.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question reflects that the present FIR was registered at the instance of the complainant-Navjot Kaur that on 03.07.2025 at about 9:30 a.m., the petitioner (herein) came to the house of the complainant in an intoxicated condition and was holding a brick in his hand. Immediately upon arrival, he struck the complainant on the left side of her head with the brick. The complainant in her complaint made to the police had alleged that the petitioner kicked her in the stomach and then picked up a danda and inflicted a blow on her back. As a result, the complainant fell to the ground, whereupon the petitioner again assaulted her by giving a danda blow on her right leg. The complainant had further alleged that thereafter the petitioner picked up a glass bottle lying in the house and attempted to strike her on the head. In order to save herself, the complainant raised her left arm, due to which the glass bottle hit her arm. Even thereafter, he kicked her on the chest. The complainant raised alarm by shouting “marta marta,” on hearing which the accused threw away the weapons and fled from the spot. Thereafter, the father of the complainant, who resides with her, reached the spot and arranged a vehicle to take her to Civil Hospital, Rampura, where she was medically examined and treated. The complainant had alleged that the motive behind the occurrence is that the petitioner, who is her husband, used to suspect her character and restrain her from going outside the house. Upon these set of allegations, the present FIR came to be registered against the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case at the behest of the complainant, who is none other than his wife. Learned counsel further submits that there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of four days in the lodging of the FIR. It is further contended that the complainant is allegedly involved in an extra-marital relationship and that the petitioner has been forcibly ousted from the house, whereas the complainant is residing there along with the minor daughters. Learned counsel further asserts that the injuries have been fabricated by the complainant merely to create pressure upon the petitioner and to extort money from him. It is also submitted that the FIR does not disclose material and essential facts, thereby casting serious doubt on its credibility and fairness. It is further argued that custodial interrogation should not be resorted to as a punitive measure and is warranted only when absolutely necessary for the recovery of material evidence, which is not the case herein. Moreover, the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation and cooperate with the investigating agency, and therefore no useful purpose would be served by sending him to judicial custody. Lastly, learned counsel prays that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be granted the concession of anticipatory bail.

4. Per contra, learned State Counsel, has vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, while raising arguments in tandem with the reply dated 27.01.2026, relevant whereof reads thus:

“5. That the petitioner Resham Singh wa