IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:12.02.2026 Sambu Sahni ... Petitioner Vs.

State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Inderjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Beant Singh Seemar, Advocate for the complainant.

...

Manisha Batra, J. (Oral).

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking benefit of anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No.237, dated 10.12.2025, registered under Section 108 of the BNS, at Police Station Machhiwara, Police District Khanna, District Ludhiana.

2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement recorded by the complainant – Kavita Devi on 10.12.2025, alleging therein that her husband Rajesh Kumar was indulged in gambling activities. The petitioner along with co-accused used to lend money to him for gambling purpose and in lieu thereof, used to charge double amount of money, due to which her husband had incurred heavy debts and had to pay them to the petitioner and co-accused, who frequently, used to visit their house, raised demand of their money from her husband and had been extending threats to him to take away his household articles if he did not pay the same. Due to that reason, her husband was under severe mental stress. In the morning of 09.12.2025, accused Ashok Kumar came to her house and misbehaved with her husband while raising demand of money. Sometime thereafter, her husband committed suicide by hanging himself with the ceiling fan of a room. He had also left a suicide note. By alleging that the petitioner and the co-accused were responsible for the suicidal death of her husband, she prayed for taking action in the matter.

3. Apprehending his arrest, petitioner moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail, which has been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide order dated 17.01.2026.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. There is no material on record to connect him with the suicide of the victim. The demand of money even if admitted to have been raised by the petitioner at some point of time, does not amount to any abetment to commit suicide by the victim. Infact to exert pressure upon him and to grab money received by husband of the complainant from the petitioner, she had lodged this FIR against him. No recovery is to be effected from him. His custodial interrogation is also not required. He is ready to join the investigation. It is, therefore, argued that he deserves to be extended the benefit of bail.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel while referring to the reply has argued that the victim used to gamble with the petitioner and co-accused, who used to give money on commission basis and had made him indebted for money. They had been exerting huge pressure upon him to return the money. He was being humiliated in society by the petitioner and other accused and feeling unable to tolerate humiliation, the victim ended his life. The extreme step was taken by the victim due to pressure exerted by the petitioner and co-accused. For conducting thorough investigation in the matter, his custodial interrogation is required. It is, therefore, urged that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

6. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

7. The petitioner along with co-accused is alleged to have abetted suicide by the husband of the complainant. Allegations against him are that he had lent money to the victim and had been rasing demand for return of the same and had been pressurizing him, due to which the victim was under distress and had ended his life. He has left a suicide note, holding the petitioner and co-accused responsible for his death. It is well settled proposition of law that powers for grant of anticipatory bail are required to be exercised in exceptional and extraordinary circumsta