IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 07.03.2026 Shubhpreet Kaur ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Aditya Dassaur, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. G. B. S. Dhillon, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jagdeep Singh Bajwa, Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3.

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant under Section 483(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondents No. 2 and 3, namely Gurdeep Singh Birdi and Parminder Singh, in case arising out of FIR No. 0004 dated 21.01.2025, registered under Sections 318(4), 82(1) and 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) at Police Station Women Ludhiana, District Police Commisionerate Ludhiana, vide order dated 03.03.2025 (Annexure P-5), passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana.

2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint filed by the present petitioner alleging therein that she was married with one Jaipreet Singh on 06.12.2009. After her marriage, she was subjected to cruelty on account of bringing insufficient dowry by the members of her in- laws family. Respondent No. 3, who was his father-in-law, also kept an evil eye upon her and even tried to molest her. She had lodged a complaint against him. Respondent No.3 had, however, apologized. The petitioner had tried to settle down at her matrimonial house but was thrown out of the same and was compelled to lodge another complaint, on the basis of which, an FIR bearing No. 66 dated 02.07.2021 under Section 498-A of IPC was registered. However, subsequently a compromise was effected and she again joined her matrimonial house but was extended beatings by her husband and other in- laws. On 31.10.2022, she was locked in a room and was assaulted by the members of her in-laws family. The matter was reported to the police. On 15.03.2022, her husband performed second marriage with one Pardeep Kaur. She got the present FIR registered against respondents No. 2 and 3 and other accused. Both, respondents No.2 and 3, moved an application seeking grant of anticipatory bail, which was allowed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana by passing the impugned order and they were granted concession of anticipatory bail. Aggrieved from the same, the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking cancellation of benefit of anticipatory bail granted to respondents No. 2 and 3.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as while passing the same, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana ignored the fact that respondents No. 2 and 3 were present at the time of performance of second marriage by her husband and were fully aware of the said fact. Hence, they were the conspirators in commission of subject offences but this fact was totally ignored by the Court concerned while passing the impugned order. These respondents had made a false statement before the Court concerned that her husband had not solemnized second marriage. They had stated that her husband was in live-in-relationship with said Pardeep Kaur. However, a marriage certificate, issued by the Gurdwara concerned, shows that the marriage between her husband and Pardeep Kaur was performed on 15.03.2025 and respondent No. 2 had even stood witness to the said marriage. Since this material fact had been concealed by these respondents, therefore, the benefit of anticipatory bail granted to them is liable to be withdrawn.

Hence, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

4. Status report has been filed by the respondent-State. Learned State has submitted that on an application submitted