203 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 25.03.2026 AMANPREET SINGH …Petitioner V/S STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Mr. Gaurav Vir Singh Behl, Advocate Mr. Jugraj Singh Chauhan, Advocate and Mr. Sagar Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sukhbeer Singh, DAG Punjab.

Mr. Saurabh Kaushik, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

****

SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL J. (Oral)

1. Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No.0244 dated 06.12.2025 under Sections 316(2), 85 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (B.N.S.), 2023, Police Station Sadar Nabha, District Patiala. This is the first petition for anticipatory bail.

2. On 27.01.2026, following order was passed:

“The present petition has been preferred seeking the grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 0244 dated 06.12.2025, registered under Sections 316(2) and 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station Sadar Nabha, District Patiala.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire allegations in the complaint as well as in the FIR are false and concocted. Learned counsel further submits that there has never been any demand of dowry or any allegation to the effect that the petitioner wanted a male child. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the complainant left the matrimonial home on her own accord on 08.09.2024, and thereafter filed a complaint on 21.11.2025. It is further pointed out that on an earlier occasion, the complainant had raised a dispute with the petitioner, which was compromised on 1st July, 2024, and thereafter the parties started living happily.

Notice of motion.

Mr. Amandeep Singh Samra, AAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the State and submits that the dowry articles are yet to be recovered. Counsel for the petitioner reiterates that, although there remains nothing to be recovered from the petitioner, however, he still ensures the recovery of the articles, if any remained in the possession of the petitioner. Learned counsel requested that the said submission shall not be construed as any admission on the part of the petitioner regarding the taking of dowry. Counsel argued that the articles exchanged were only customary gifts, therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required in this regard.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Without commenting on the merits of the case, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation on 02.02.2026 at 10:00 A.M. before the Investigating Officer and to cooperate with the Investigating Agency thereafter.

In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on interim bail, subject to furnishing of personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall abide by the conditions envisaged under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023.

Adjourned to 27.02.2026.

However, it is made clear that this order shall not be construed as parity qua any other co-accused.”

3. Vide order dated 27.01.2026 passed by this Court, the petitioner was granted interim bail and was directed to join investigation. 4. Learned State counsel on instructions from ASI Jaspal Singh submits that petitioner has joined investigation. Assisted by learned counsel for respondent No. 2, he opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail on the ground that dowry articles i.e gold items and furniture worth more ₹

than 15,00,000/- were yet to be recovered from the petitioner.

5. Petitioner has joined investigation pursuant to order of this Court dated 27.01.2026. Whether or not, the dowry articles were indeed entrusted to him, would be a matter of trial. In the circumstances of the case but without commenting on merits, the petition is allowed and order dated dated 27.01.2026, granting interim bail to the petitioner, is made absolute, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 482(2) of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

6. Pending CRM(s), if any, are also disposed of accordingly.

(SHALI