IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH

106 CRM-M-8012-2026 (O&M)

DATE OF DECISION : 12.02.2026 HARDEEP KAUR @KULDEEP KAUR .....PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB .....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present : Mr. Harpreet Singh Jakhal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.

Mr. Divyansh Vats, Advocate for the complainant.

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

This is first petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner with regard to FIR No.154 dated 24.10.2025 under Section 108 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Mamdot. The abovesaid FIR came into being at the instance of ‘Balaka Singh’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was alleged by the complainant that the marriage of his son ‘Sukhbir Singh’ was solemnized about 7-8 months back with ‘Virpal Kaur’, and that after some time of their marriage, the relationship between his son and daughter-in-law became sour as ‘Virpal Kaur’ used to fight with his son very frequently on trivial matters, and used to share every details with her parents and relatives. According to complainant, due to abovementioned behaviour of his wife, his son ‘Sukhbir Singh’ was very upset. It was further stated by the complainant that in the last month, his son was visiting home on one month leave, and that during that period, he was very upset.

2. It was further stated by the complainant that two days before Diwali, Gursewak Singh, brother-in-law of his son, had visited their home and he spoke to them in a very insulting manner and threatened that he will file the FIR and implicate the complainant and his son ‘Sukhbir Singh’ in a case for demand of dowry. As per complainant, Gursewak Singh also threatened ‘Sukhbir Singh’ that he will get him suspended. According to complainant, in the backdrop of abovementioned developments his son, who was very upset, left home on 21.10.2025 at 06:00 pm, and later on, his dead body was recovered from the canal. It was also stated by the complainant that in the phone of his deceased son, there was a video clip, wherein the suicide message was recorded.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that in view of abovementioned information, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up.

4. Notice of motion

5. Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab appears on behalf of respondent-State. Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with.

6. Mr. Divyansh Vats, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of complainant and filed Power of Attorney. The same be taken on record.

7. Heard.

8. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner is an old-age lady, who has been falsely implicated in the present case. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has no nexus, whatsoever, with the commission of crime, and that in the present case, she has been implicated without any iota of evidence against her.

9. While highlighting the contents of FIR, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present case, the only reference with regard to reason behind the commission of suicide is the sharing of events by the widow of deceased with her parents and relatives. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the abovementioned reason by any stretch of imagination firstly cannot be treated as gospel truth, and secondly there is no sufficient ground to draw an inference that there was any kind of abetment to commit suicide. While claiming that a false case has been planted upon the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner has sought the benefit of pre-arrest bail for the petitioner.

10. The learned State Counsel being assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has controverted the abovementioned arguments. It has been contended by learned State Counsel that in the present case, there is a video footage, wherein the deceased just before his death had recorded the suicide message and i