IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

206 Date of decision: 22.12.2025 BHARAT VIGA RANI PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Mr. Priyanshu Kamra, Advocate for the petitioner (through video conferencing).

Mr. Hardeep Singh Wadhwa, DAG Punjab.

***

Shalini Singh Nagpal, J. (Oral)

1. Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case vide FIR No.15 dated 02.07.2020 under Sections 406, 498-A IPC, Police Station NRI, District Police Commissionerate, Ludhiana. Sections 313, 467, 468, 471, 420, 120-B IPC have been added in the FIR during investigation. This is the first petition for anticipatory bail.

2. On 28.11.2025, following order was passed:- “Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No.15 dated

02.07.2020 under Sections 406, 498-A IPC, Police Station NRI, District Police Commissionerate, Ludhiana. Sections 313, 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120-B IPC have been added in the FIR during investigation. This is the first petitioner for anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there were no means to serve respondent No.2, who was intentionally absconding being wanted in criminal cases registered against her. He seeks permission of the Court to give up respondent No.2.

Allowed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that marriage of petitioner and complainant was solemnized on 30.11.2017 and the FIR was got registered on 02.07.2020. He further submits that co-accused, parents and brother of the petitioner had since been enlarged on anticipatory bail. A sum ₹

of 2,00,000/- was also deposited by petitioner's mother, pursuant to order of this Court, before the Area Magistrate. Petitioner had been falsely implicated in the case. He had disclosed his previous marriage to the complainant before solemnizing marriage. Complainant herself left the matrimonial home on 25.03.2018 and got the case registered after two years. It is argued that the real cause of dispute between the parties was that the complainant wanted the petitioner to invest money in her brother's immigration business and Sections 313, 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120-B IPC were invoked during investigation only to exaggerate and aggravate the allegations. It is argued that petitioner did not sign the consent form submitted in Mahajan Carewell Hospital, Jalandhar nor the police collected any material to show that the signatures on the consent form of Mahajan Carewell Hospital, Jalandhar were appended by the petitioner. The offences under Section 420 and 120-B IPC were invoked on mere allegation that intention of petitioner and co-accused was not to send the complainant to United Kingdom. Learned counsel submits that it was a case of routine matrimonial discord and there was neither cruelty nor dowry demand and he was ready and willing to join investigation.

Respondent No.1-State is directed to file status report on or before the next date of hearing i.e. 16.12.2025.

In the meantime, in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on interim anticipatory bail subject to their furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer. Petitioner shall join investigation as and when called upon to do so and shall abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.”

3. Status report by way of affidavit of Mr. Harjinder Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, NRI Wing, Ludhiana on behalf of the respondent-State has been filed. The same is made part of the record. Learned State counsel concedes that petitioner had joined investigation and further custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required.

4. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, as enumerated above, but without commenting on merits, order dated 28.11.2025, granting interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made absolute, subject to conditions laid down in Section 482(2) Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksh