IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH

108 CRM-M-8210-2026 (O&M)

DATE OF DECISION : 12.02.2026 MANINDER SINGH @MANI .....PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

.....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present : Mr. Shivam Vashisht, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

This is first petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner with regard to FIR No.359 dated 23.12.2025 under Section 108 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Samrala, District Khanna, Punjab. The abovesaid FIR came into being at the instance of ‘Jasvir Kaur’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the complainant that her elder son ‘Ajmer Singh’ was married with ‘Jiwan Jyoti’ in 2012 and they had three children, aged 12 years, 9 years and 6 years, respectively, out of abovesaid wedlock. As per complainant, the relationship between her son ‘Ajmer Singh’ and daughter-in-law ‘Jiwan Jyoti’ was not cordial, because ‘Jiwan Jyoti’ had developed illicit relationship with Maninder Singh (petitioner herein) and that her son ‘Ajmer Singh’ had come to know about that.

2. According to complainant, ‘Ajmer Singh’ on several occasions asked ‘Jiwan Jyoti’ to mend herself, but ‘Jiwan Jyoti’ used to quarrel with ‘Ajmer Singh’, due to which he was mentally disturbed and reached to a stage that on 16.12.2025 at about 12:30 pm, he committed suicide by jumping in the canal. As per complainant, the dead body of her son was found at 03:00 pm on 22.12.2025.

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. Heard.

7. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner is innocent having no nexus, whatsoever, with the commission of crime, and that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has been further alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is alien to the family of complainant and the deceased, but by levelling a false allegation with regard to illicit relationship with the wife of deceased, he has been dragged into the present case as an accused. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, for the sake of arguments even if this allegation is accepted to be a gospel truth that there was a relationship between the wife of deceased and the petitioner, even then there is no allegation to the effect that any act of the petitioner, overt or covert, abetted the commission of suicide by the petitioner.

8. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, a false story has been cooked-up by the prosecution to implicate the petitioner in the commission of crime, and that nothing is left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner, and his custodial interrogation is not likely to produce any result. In view of above it has been contended that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of pre-arrest bail.

9. The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. It has been contended by learned State Counsel that there are very specific and categorical allegations against the petitioner that his illicit relationship with wife of deceased is responsible for the suicide committed by the son of complainant. As per learned State Counsel, one of the crucial evidence collected by the Investigating Agency during the course of investigation is the statement of 12/13 years old child of deceased, who in his own writing has stated that his father because of relationship of his wife with the petitioner was very upset and because of abovementioned relationship, there was strained relationship between his deceased father and the mother.

10. The record has been perused carefully.

11. As far as the benefit of antici