Anticipatory bail may be denied in matrimonial disputes involving allegations of misappropriation of assets and non-cooperation in related family court proceedings, especially when recovery of the alleged stolen items is pending.

H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral)

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners for direction to the Arresting Officer to release the petitioners on bail forthwith in event of their arrest in case FIR No 145 dated 02.10.2025 under Section 316(2) of BNS and Section 61(2) BNS added on 29.12.2025 registered at Police Station Satnampura, District Kapurthala.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the daughter of the petitioners was married to the complainant on 26.01.2015. On 10.04.2025, the complainant’s wife left the matrimonial home on the pretext that the children had holidays and did not return thereafter. On 15.04.2025, the complainant, accompanied by respectable members of his family, approached his in-laws to bring her back; however, they refused to send her with him. Upon returning home, the complainant discovered that gold articles, which had been entrusted to his wife for safe custody, along with an amount of ₹2,50,000/-, were missing. It is further alleged that the complainant’s child is presently in the custody of the petitioners.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present dispute is purely matrimonial in nature and that false allegations regarding the misappropriation of gold articles and cash have been levelled against the petitioners. He further submits that the complaint has been filed only to exert undue pressure upon the petitioners and their daughter in relation to the custody of the minor child. It is contended that proceedings concerning custody of the child are already pending under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 before the learned Family Court at Kharar.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Mr. Rohit Hans, learned DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent–State and has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioners. He has filed a status report by way of an affidavit of Bharat Bhushan, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division Phagwara, District Kapurthala, in Court today, which is taken on record. He further submits that the recovery of gold articles and other items is yet to be effected from the petitioners.

6. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Bawa, Advocate, appears on behalf of the complainant and has filed his vakalatnama in Court today, which is taken on record. He submits that the petitioners are not cooperating with the proceedings before the Family Court, as the minor child has not been produced.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and and considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the fact that the recovery of gold articles and other items is yet to be effected, the alleged non-cooperation of the petitioners in the proceedings before ld. Family Court, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Consequently, the present petition seeking anticipatory bail is dismissed.

10. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.