In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Date of Decision: 27.03.2026 Veerpal Kaur ... Petitioner(s)

Versus State of Punjab ... Respondent(s)

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh.

Present: Ms. Kiranjeet Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner(s) (Through Hybrid Mode)

Ms. Gagandeep Kaur, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.

Mr. Divyansh Vats, Advocate for the complainant.

Surya Partap Singh, J.

1. This petition for anticipatory bail is the first petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No. 154 dated 24.10.2025, for the commission of offence punishable under Section(s) 108 of ‘the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023’ Police Station Mamdot, District Ferozepur, Punjab.

2. Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of this case came into being at the instance of ‘Balaka Singh’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the above named complainant that the marriage of his son ‘Sukhbir Singh’ was solemnized about seven to eight months ago with ‘Veerpal Kaur’ (the petitioner herein), and that after some time of marriage, their relationship became sour, because ‘Veerpal Kaur’ used to frequently pick-up quarrels with his son, over trivial matters, and used to share every detail with her parents and relatives. According to complainant, due to above-mentioned behaviour of his daughter-in-law, his son ‘Sukhbir Singh’ was very upset. It was further stated by the complainant that one month ago, his son had come home on one month’s leave, and during that period, he was very upset.

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

4. It is the case of prosecution that in view of above-mentioned complaint, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up.

5. Notice of motion.

6. Since advance notice has already been served upon the State, Ms. Gagandeep Kaur, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State. Hence, service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with.

7. Mr. Divyansh Vats, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of complainant and filed power of attorney. The same be taken on record.

8. Heard.

9. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has no nexus, whatsoever, with the commission of crime, and that she has been falsely implicated in the present case without any iota of evidence.

10. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the contents of FIR show that in the present case, the only reference with regard to the reason behind the commission of suicide is the sharing of events by the widow of the deceased with her parents and relatives. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the above-mentioned allegation by no stretch of imagination can be treated a reason for suicide, 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 for the benefit of anticipatory bai