IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

205 Date of decision: 09.02.2026 HARSH PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Mr. Rhythem Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Akash Yadav, AAG Punjab. Mr. Sandeep Khunger, Advocate, Mr. Saksham Khunger, Advocate and Ms. Srishti, Advocate for respondent No.2.

***

Shalini Singh Nagpal, J. (Oral)

1. Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case vide FIR No.254 dated 24.10.2025 under Sections 85/316(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (B.N.S.), 2023 and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station City-1 Abohar, District Fazilka. This is the first petition for anticipatory bail.

2. On 15.01.2026, following order was passed:- “Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No. 254 dated 24.10.2025 under Sections 85 and 316(2) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station City-1 Abohar, District Fazilka. This is his first petition for anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that petitioner was the husband of the complainant. Marriage of petitioner and complainant was solemnized on 06.10.2024 and the FIR was registered after one year on 24.10.2025. He further submits that it was a case of routine matrimonial discord given colour of dowry dispute. General and vague allegations were levelled against the husband and parents-in-law, who had since been granted anticipatory bail. It is pointed out that soon after registration of the FIR, on 10.11.2025, petitioner moved an application (Annexure P2) before learned SDJM, Abohar praying that the Investigating Officer/SHO, Police Station City-1 Abohar be directed to take possession of the articles belonging to the complainant. That application was still pending for report of the SHO. It is argued that the FIR was lodged on false allegation that complainant was turned out of matrimonial home on 03.03.2025 by the accused. On that day, the in-laws were in Japan. The petitioner was also in possession of an audio clip of conversation between the father of the complainant and father of the petitioner wherein father of the complainant was admitting that there was no demand of dowry and the mistake was of the complainant. It is urged that petitioner, who had clean antecedents, was ready and willing to join investigation.

Notice of Motion.

Mr. Kunwarbir Singh, AAG Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of Respondent No.1-State and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail submitting that two weeks after the marriage took place, petitioner and his family members started harassing the complainant in connection with demands of dowry and raised demand of Swift car. In that context, Panchayats were convened. The allegations against the petitioner were not vague and general but were specific in the detailed complaint and petitioner was not entitled to concession of anticipatory bail.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating/Arresting Officer and join investigation within one week or as and when required. In the event of his arrest, the Investigating/Arresting Officer shall release the petitioner on interim anticipatory bail on furnishing personal/surety bonds to his/her satisfaction. The petitioner shall also abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. State is directed to file status report on 09.02.2026.”

3. Status report by way of affidavit of Mr. Sukhwinder Singh Brar, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-division Abohar, District Fazilka on behalf of respondent No.1-State has been filed. Mr. Sandeep Khunger, Advocate appears on behalf of respondent No.2 and files his power of attorney. The same are made part of the record. Learned State counsel submits that pursuant to order dated 15.01.2026, petitioner joined investigation on 18.01.2026. Some household articles and g