IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-66033-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 30.03.2026 Piyush Garg ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Deepinder Singh Virk, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Aakanksha Gupta, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. L.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the complainant.

****

KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL)

1. Apprehending arrest the petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 164 dated 13.07.2025, under Sections 316(2) and 85 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, registered at Police Station City Rajpura, District Patiala.

2. This Court while issuing notice of motion on 21.11.2025 passed the following order:-

“The present petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.164 dated 13.07.2025, registered at Police Station City Rajpura, District Patiala, for offence punishable under Sections 316(2) and 85 of the BNS, 2023.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the ingredients of Sections 316(2) and 85 of BNS are not met, as there is no cogent proof of any demand of dowry, much less any cruelty or harassment caused to the complainant on account of used to point finger towards the character of the complainant, however, the immediate allegation is that the petitioner often used to say that a boy like him was receiving matrimonial proposals of affluent families. This allegation seems to be self- contradictory, as a person who is accusing his wife of her bad character in the same breath is unlikely to say that he was receiving matrimonial proposals from affluent families. It is further submitted that there is no allegation of any physical assault on the complainant but only a vague averment that the petitioner behaved in a manner that made the complainant feel being physically assaulted.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that both the parties are well-educated and there are high chances that the matter can be amicably resolved at this stage only, considering the fact that the parties are well placed in the society and it would be larger interest of both the families as well as the parties that the matter is amicably resolved as soon as possible.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shivangi Bansal V/s Sahib Bansal, 2025 INSC 883 and the dicta passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar V/s State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 and Stainder Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, SLP (Crl.) No.5191 of 2021 has not been followed in the present case.

Notice of motion.

Mr. Japjot Singh, AAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. The complainant is not presently impleaded as a party. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to implead the complainant as a party within one week from today. State is directed to inform the complainant with regard to the pendency of this petition.

Considering the fact that the parties got married on

08.12.2023 and subsequently left each other's company on 25.03.2024, however, again rekindled on 27.07.2024. Thereafter, the complainant again left the company of the petitioner in October, 2024 and the present FIR came to be lodged on a complaint filed on 30.05.2025 by the complainant without any explanation with regard to an inordinate delay of almost 06 months.

In light of the above, the arrest of the petitioner is stayed till the next date of hearing and the parties are directed to appear in person before this Court on the next date of hearing.

Liberty is granted to the parties to join the proceedings through video conferencing on the next date of hearing.

Adjourned to 15.12.2025.

3. Thereafter, vide order dated 25.03.2026, petitioner was directed to join investigation.

4. Learned State counsel on instructions from ASI B