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

Ms. Aakanksha Gupta, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Ritesh Pandey, Advocate for respondent No.2.

****

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.70 dated 04.09.2025, under Sections 406 and 498-A of IPC, registered at Police Station Women, District Police Commissionerate Amritsar.

2. Vide order dated 24.3.2026, the petitioner was directed to join investigation. The said order is reproduced hereinafter:-

“The present petition has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 70 dated 04.09.2025, under Sections 406 and 498-A of the IPC at Police Station Women Police Commissionerate, Amritsar.

Both the parties are present in person in the Court today.

In furtherance of various proceedings and earnest efforts made by the counsel as well as the Court, the parties have not been able to arrive at a compromise.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the allegations made in the FIR are false and concocted, and that no offence is made out against the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the marriage was solemnized on 13.04.2016 and there has never been any demand, much less any harassment, on account of dowry. It is, in fact, the complainant who has been dominating and demeaning the petitioner. It is further submitted that a house was purchased with a 50% share belonging to the father of the complainant, and the remaining 50% is in the joint names of the petitioner and the complainant. Learned counsel submits that all efforts made by the petitioner to lead a peaceful and happy married life have been scuttled by the complainant, and that the present FIR has been lodged only to exert pressure upon the petitioner.

Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant submits that since a separate residence is available to the parties, efforts should be made for them to reside together. However, the petitioner has expressed serious apprehensions, submitting that the complainant has threatened to administer a poisonous substance in his food and will cause his death. The said allegations are vehemently denied by the complainant, who submits that all such allegations are false and that she wishes to restore matrimonial harmony.

Learned counsel for the complainant further submits that the allegations levelled in the FIR are true and supported by cogent evidence. It is submitted that the petitioner and his family have repeatedly demanded dowry, and that the parents of the complainant have, on several occasions, succumbed to such demands by giving cash in the presence of witnesses. It is further submitted that the petitioner and his family have been evading the issue and have not only demanded dowry but have also repeatedly subjected the complainant to physical and mental harassment, to the extent that she was compelled to lodge the present FIR. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner did not even bother to visit the complainant at the time of the birth of their child, which reflects his conduct.

Learned State counsel submits that the investigation is underway and that the petitioner and the mother of the petitioner were granted the concession of anticipatory bail and have joined the investigation. However, it is submitted that substantial recoveries are yet to be effected, as the petitioner is in possession of the dowry articles and other gifts, including customary gifts, which are required to be recovered.

Learned State counsel further submits that the complainant has furnished details of the articles along with bills and photographs in support thereof.

Heard learned counsel for the pa