IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

101+204 CRM-M-19647-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 22.12.2025 Pawan Kumar ...... Petitioner V/S State of Punjab and Anr.

..... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI Present: Mr. Sandeep Godara, Advocate for Mr. Ajay Pal Singh Rehan, Advocate for petitioner.

Ms. Manjot Kaur, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. R.K.Sawariya, Advocate for respondent No.2.

****

AMARJOT BHATTI J. (ORAL)

CRM-M-51619-2025 This is an application u/s 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for placing on record amended grounds of petition for anticipatory bail by incorporating Section 406 of IPC in the head note and prayer clause.

For the reasons stated in the application, same is allowed. Amended petition is taken on record, subject to just exceptions. Registry is directed to tag the same at appropriate place.

Application is disposed of accordingly.

CRM-M-19647-2025

1. Petitioner – Pawan Kumar has filed this petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.40 dated 15.03.2025, under Section 498-A & 406 of IPC, registered at Police Station Dinanagar, District Gurdaspur.

2. As per facts of the case, complainant/respondent No.2 Manju Bala filed written complaint against her husband Pawan Kumar and other members of in-laws family levelling the allegations of harassment and beatings given to her on account of demand for dowry. Her marriage was solemnized with Pawan Kumar on 14.07.2023. Her parents had given dowry consisting of refrigerator, cooler, almirah, washing machine, LED TV and gold ornaments. They had spent about Rs.8 Lakhs on marriage and other expenses. Soon after marriage, they started raising demand for cash of Rs.2 Lakhs and a car. Initially, she did not tell anything to her parents. Their maltreatment continued. Her husband was having illicit affair with another girl working with him at his workplace. She was beaten up and turned out of the matrimonial home. She stayed with her parents for about two months and finally, with the intervention of respectables, the matter was compromised and she was again sent back in the matrimonial home. There was no change in the behaviour of her husband and his family. Number of times compromises were effected but he did not change his behaviour. In fact they did not fulfill the terms and conditions of compromise and finally, the matter was reported to the police. With these allegations, present FIR has been registered.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner argued that allegations levelled against him are false and without any basis. The marriage was performed in a simple manner. He was employed as B.A.M.S. doctor in a private hospital whereas his wife was working as a Staff Nurse with National Rural Health Mission (NHRM) on contract basis. She was never maltreated on account of demand for dowry. He made every possible effort to adjust her in the matrimonial home. Without considering the facts, his anticipatory bail application was wrongly declined by learned Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur vide order dated 02.04.2025 (Annexure P-1). He is ready to abide by the terms and conditions of bail order.

4. Bail petition is opposed by learned counsel representing State assisted by learned counsel for respondent No.2. Learned counsel representing State referred to the status report and the list of dowry articles (Annexure R-1). It is pointed out that one gold chain and one gold ring are yet to be recovered. The articles already recovered in this case are detailed in Annexure R-2. There are specific serious allegations against the petitioner.

5. I have considered the arguments and have gone through the record carefully. Initially FIR was lodged under Section 498-A of IPC and petitioner was granted interim relief. Offence under Section 406 of IPC was added subsequently vide DDR No.24 dated 10.04.2025. As per status report, all dowry articles are recovered except one gold chain and gents’ gold ring. It shows that petitioner