IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 16.01.2026 AMRESH KUMAR ......Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Ms. Menka Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Aakanksha Gupta, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Jaiteshwar S. Bhandari, Advocate for the complainant. (through VC)

****

KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in case FIR No. 14 dated 17.03.2025, under Sections 406 and 498-A of IPC, registered at Police Station Women, Ferozepur, Punjab.

2. Vide order dated 08.12.2025, the petitioner was directed to join investigation. The said order is reproduced hereinafter:-

“Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case. It is submitted that the marriage between petitioner and the complainant was solemnized on 05.06.2023 as per Hindu rites and rituals, and at the time of marriage no dowry etc. was exchanged. On 11.12.2023, the petitioner left for his official duty at Ayodhya, whereafter the complainant left her matrimonial home on 15.12.2023 without any reasonable cause. Subsequently, on 07.03.2024, the complainant filed a complaint with Uttar Pradesh Police, however, the matter was compromised between the parties on 11.03.2024. Yet, the complainant did not return to her matrimonial house. It is also submitted that petitioner is willing to reconcile with the complainant, for which purpose, he even filed a petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, seeking restitution of conjugal rights. As a counterblast to the same, the complainant filed the instant complaint by levelling false allegations against the petitioner and his family members, based on which the instant FIR has been registered.

Status report by way of affidavit of Deputy Superintendent of Police, (PBI) Ferozepur/Additional Charge of DSP (CAW/C) Ferozepur has been filed on behalf of the State, which is taken on record. Copy thereof has been supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned State counsel opposes the present petition and submits that since serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner, therefore, he is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail.

One of the main pillars of jurisprudence on which the criminal justice system is based, is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. If seen in that context, the provision of anticipatory bail, in its essence, can be understood as a safeguard to prevent the curtailment of liberty of an individual, a cherished constitutional guarantee, in circumstances where arrest may be unwarranted, arbitrary, or mala fide. This discretionary power, trite to say, must be exercised judiciously, based on considerations, which include but are not limited to, the nature and gravity of the allegations, the antecedents of the accused, the possibility of the fleeing from justice, and the likelihood of the evidence being tampered with and witnesses being influenced.

Reverting to the case in hand, the instant FIR is the outcome of a matrimonial disputre between the parties. All the contentions made herein are disputed questions of facts, which shall be determined during the course of trial.

In view of the above, the petitioner is directed to join investigation before the Investigating Agency/Officer. He shall abide by the following conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2)

BNSS, 2023;-

(1) That the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required to do so.

(2) That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts to the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to Court or to any police officer.

(3) That the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permis