IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Gurtej Singh @ Gurtej Singh Brar ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent Sr. No. Particulars Details 1 The date when the judgment is reserved 29.04.2026 2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 30.04.2026 3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 30.04.2026 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or full

4 Full judgment is pronounced The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and Not

5 reasons thereof applicable CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Samay Sandhawalia, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Amaninder Singh Sekhon, Advocate for the complainant.

MANISHA BATRA, J.

1. The instant one is the second petition that has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail to him in case arising out of FIR No. 79 dated 17.05.2024, registered under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC (both these sections were deleted and Sections 306 and 201 of IPC were added later on and then on alteration of charge, Sections 302 and 201 of IPC have been added) at Police Station Jaito Faridkot, District Faridkot.

2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a statement made by the complainant Surinder Singh, wherein it was alleged that his niece, Kulwinder Kaur, had been married to the present petitioner approximately 16 years prior to the occurrence. It was alleged that since the inception of the matrimonial relationship, the petitioner had been subjecting the deceased to ill-treatment, including physical assault. It was further alleged that the petitioner was involved in extramarital relationships, which fact was disclosed by the deceased to her parental family. On 16.05.2024, upon receiving information that Kulwinder Kaur had been admitted to a hospital, the complainant reached there and found her in a critical condition. Upon inquiry, the deceased allegedly disclosed that on the said day, the petitioner had thrown her onto the bed, while her mother-in-law caught hold of her arm and then the petitioner, while slapping her, forcibly administered some poisonous substance into her mouth with an intent to kill her. Thereafter, he left the place after snatching her mobile phone. The victim became unconscious and was subsequently taken to the hospital. The victim later on died. Initially, a case under Section 302 IPC was registered. However, during the course of investigation, the offence under Section 302 IPC was deleted and offences under Sections 306 and 201 IPC were added. The petitioner, who had been arrested and remained in custody, was granted the concession of bail by the learned trial Court vide order dated 05.08.2024.

3. As revealed from the record, during the course of trial, the prosecution moved an application seeking alteration of charge, which came to be allowed by the learned trial Court, vide order dated 23.02.2026, whereby charges under Sections 302 and 201 IPC were ordered to be framed against the petitioner. Apprehending his arrest pursuant to the invocation of the offence under Section 302 IPC, the petitioner moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail before the learned trial Court but the same was dismissed vide order dated 20.03.2026. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing a petition bearing number CRM-M-18317-2026, which too had been dismissed vide order dated 06.04.2026.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner had earlier been granted the concession of regular bail in the present case after having remained in custody for a substantial period. It is submitted that the petitioner is now apprehending his arrest consequent to the addition of the offence under Section 302 IPC. No prima facie case for the commission of the aforesaid offence is made out against the petitioner. It is contended that no external injury wa