IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 22.01.2026 Harpreet Singh ..... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and another ..... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI Present: Mr. Sumit Kalyan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Amrit Kaur Mahir, AAG, Punjab.

None for respondent No. 2/complainant.

****

AMARJOT BHATTI J. (ORAL)

1. Petitioner – Harpreet Singh has filed petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 204 dated 13.09.2024 under Section 377, 498-A, 406 IPC registered at Police Station Patran, District Patiala (Annexure P-1).

2. As per the facts of case, Veerpal Kaur filed written complaint against her husband Harpreet Singh and other members of in-laws family levelling allegations of maltreatment on account of demand for dowry. Complainant alleged that her marriage was solemnized with Harpreet Singh on 17.05.2020, according to Sikh rites. All expenses were incurred by her family as per demand of accused persons. They were given gold ornaments, dowry articles and cash of rupees one lakh. Complainant was earlier married and this fact was well within the knowledge of accused persons. They lived together as husband and wife in village Sarhala, Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur for about 8-9 months and thereafter, her husband went abroad. After about 15 days of marriage, other family members i.e. mother-in-law Daljinder Kaur, brother- in-law Amardeep Singh, sister-in-law Mohinder Kaur started taunting her for bringing less dowry. She tried to adjust in matrimonial home. With the passage of time, they even started beating her. Behaviour of her husband also changed. There was demand to bring cash of rupees 5 lakh from her parents. Her brother- in-law Amardeep Singh applied for going to Canada and on their demand, her parents gave Rs. 4,35,000/- to save her marriage. Her husband returned to India in November 2022. Maltreatment and their various demands continued. On 18.07.2023, she was given severe beatings with the intention to turn her out from matrimonial home. All her dowry articles were in custody of accused persons. She wanted to settle in matrimonial home but behaviour of her husband and in-laws family was bad towards her. Finally, she filed the complaint.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner denied all the allegations leveled against him. It is pointed out that matter was referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre, but it remained unsettled. In fact, complainant has lodged false FIR in order to extract money from him. Earlier, she had filed a complaint which was found to be false. She is trying to give improved version. Earlier, complainant was married and she took divorce on 25.08.2020, whereas she performed marriage with petitioner on 17.5.2020. Regarding dowry articles, learned counsel for petitioner stated that he does not have any article belonging to complainant.

4. Bail petition is opposed by learned counsel representing State. Initially, Ms. Rajandeep Kaur, Legal Aid Counsel appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2/complainant, but thereafter, she stopped appearing.

As per status report, facts narrated in FIR are confirmed. It is pointed out that there are specific allegations of maltreatment on account of demand for dowry. Complainant was turned out of the matrimonial home. Dowry articles in possession of petitioner are yet to be recovered. Therefore, his custodial interrogation is required. With these arguments, anticipatory bail petition filed by petitioner is opposed by learned State counsel.

5. I have considered the arguments and have gone through the record carefully. Initially, there was an effort to settle the matrimonial dispute between petitioner and his wife, therefore, matter was referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre, but no fruitful results could be achieved. As per contents of FIR, petitioner got married with complainant on 17.05.2020. As per allegations, she was given dowry articles