IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

207 Date of decision: 14.05.2026 Mandeep Kaur ... Petitioner Vs.

State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pratham Sethi, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab, for the respondent.

Mr. Vishal Deep Goyal, Advocate and Mr. Mandeep Budhiraja, Advocate, for the complainant.

----

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking anticipatory bail in the FIR mentioned below:-

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

67 28.02.2026 Sadar Ferozepur,108 and 3(5) of the District Ferozepur Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNS”)

2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement recorded by the complainant Darbara Singh alleging therein that his elder son Gagandeep Singh was married with the petitioner in the year 2015 and three children were born out of his loins. He had separated from the complainant in the year 2020 and had started residing with his family in a nearby house. He alleged that the petitioner who is a Punjab Police employee, used to quarrel with her husband quiet often. She even used to call her father and one unknown person to her house for the purpose of assaulting her husband. On 20.02.2026 also, she called her father and unknown person to her house. All of them extended beatings to Gagandeep Singh due to which he was highly perturbed. Gagandeep Singh used to share the treatment meted out at the hands of the petitioner and her father etc. and had told the complainant that he had been extended threats by them. On 22.02.2026 also, the petitioner after quarrelling with Gagandeep Singh extended threats to him to call her family members. Due to distress and fear, her son consumed some poisonous substance. He was taken to hospital but had died during the course of treatment on 27.02.2026. By alleging that the petitioner and her father etc. were responsible for homicidal death of the victim, he prayed for taking action in the matter.

3. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings have been initiated and are underway. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail which was dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur vide order dated

24.03.2026.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that she has been falsely implicated in this case. The deceased who was her husband was a drug addict. He ended his own life by consuming some poisonous substance. He was unemployed. There is delay in reporting the matter to the police which has not been explained at all. Neither any suicide note has been left by the deceased nor there is any dying declaration. The ingredients for commission of offence punishable under Section 108 of BNS are not at all attracted qua her. She is ready to join investigation. Her custodial interrogation is not required. No recovery is to be effected from her. It is, thus, argued that she deserves to be extended benefit of pre arrest bail.

5. Learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. The CCTV footage collected during investigation prima facie corroborates the allegations of the father of the deceased assaulting the deceased and the petitioner facilitating the assault by handing over a stick to her father thereby demonstrating her active participation and instigation in the occurrence. For conducting proper and thorough investigation in the matter, her custodial interrogation is required. There is no exceptional circumstance to extend benefit of pre arrest bail to her.

It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

6. This Court has considered the rival submissions.

7. The petitioner along with the co