IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 30.03.2026 GURJANT SINGH .....Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Ritender Rathee, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Aakanksha Gupta, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Ankush Singla, Advocate for respondent No.2.

****

KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL)

1. The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been invoked for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.98 dated 04.12.2023 under Sections 498-A & 406 of IPC, registered at Police Station PS Women, District Patiala.

2. Brief factual matrix of the instant case is that the instant FIR was registered on the statement of the complainant, wherein she alleged that at the time of her marriage with the petitioner, which was solemnized on 14.02.2020 as per Sikh rites, her widowed mother spent substantial amounts beyond her means on dowry articles, including cash, gold ornaments, a car, and household items. Yet, soon after marriage, she was allegedly subjected to continuous taunts and harassment by her husband and in-laws on account of insufficient dowry and its alleged poor quality. It was the further allegation that after the birth of her daughter in December 2020, she was even harassed for not bearing a male child and was allegedly abandoned at the hospital, forcing her to return to her parental home. Despite panchayat interventions and temporary compromises, the accused persons continued to subject her to physical and mental cruelty, including beating her shortly after childbirth and also repeated instances of being turned out of the matrimonial home along with her minor daughter. The petitioner allegedly demanded Rs. 15 lakhs from her, and assaulted her upon her inability to meet the demand. Allegations of involvement of the petitioner in an illicit relationship, leading to further harassment and threats, were also levelled. In April 2023, the petitioner allegedly expelled the complainant from the matrimonial home, and has since refused to take her back, even retaining her dowry articles, gold ornaments, and documents, while simultaneously also extending threats to her.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present FIR on the basis of the statement made by the complainant, leveling sweeping and omnibus allegations of harassment for demand of dowry and acts of cruelty. It is submitted that the marriage between the petitioner and the prosecutrix was solemnized on 14.02.2020. Neither was any dowry demanded or received by the petitioner at the time or subsequently thereafter. In fact, the complainant shortly after the marriage started torturing the petitioner mentally by demanding costly gifts for herself and her mother. The petitioner kept on fulfilling the demand of respondent No.2 in the hope that some goodwill will prevail upon her. However, despite all the efforts made by the petitioner to keep his matrimonial life safe, respondent No.2, without any justifiable cause, withdrew from the company of her husband in March, 2023 and has willfully refused to resume cohabitation. It is further submitted that no cogent or reliable evidence has been brought on record to substantiate the allegations leveled against the petitioner. In fact, allegations against the mother and the sister of the petitioner were also found to be baseless by the investigating agency.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submit that there are specific and serious allegations against the petitioner. Learned State counsel, on instructions from the investigating officer concerned, submits that the petitioner was actively involved in the commission of the offence. Learned State counsel further submits that the petitioner, along with his family members, made persistent demands