Subhash Ram and another vs State of Punjab

This order shall dispose of CRM-M-44286-2026 and CRM-M-43724-2026, as all the petitions are interconnected and have arisen out of same FIR. However, the lead case is CRM-M-44286-2026.

Prayer in these petitions, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438 Cr.P.C.), is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner(s), who have been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed here-under:-

Brief facts of the prosecution case are that complainant Gopi Ram, son of Chand Ram got registered the present case with the allegations that he is working as a labourer. He has one son, namely, Sandeep Kumar. Complainant further stated that on 08.06.2026 at about 11:00 P.M., he noticed that his son Sandeep Kumar was not on the cot and, thereafter, started searching for his son through calling the relatives, but he could not be traced. Complainant further alleged that on 09.06.2026 at about 6:00 A.M., when he reached near Gang Canal, about 100 yards away from the bridge, dead body of Sandeep Kumar was found hanging from a tree. The body was got removed and brought to the house.

Complainant further alleged that his son had been married about five months earlier with Reena, daughter of Subhash Ram, resident of village Alamgarh, Tehsil Abohar. Complainant further alleged that about 10 days prior thereto, Seema, mother-in-law of his son, had taken Reena to their home. When his son went to their village to bring back his wife, they refused and further told him that they would keep him as Ghar Jamai, but complainant's son did not agree with the same. Complainant also alleged that brother-in-law of his son and Reena had started teasing his son and compelling him to remain in their house as Ghar Jamai. Complainant further stated that he was not aware as to whether deceased's wife had harassed his son over phone, but his son was very much disturbed on account of his in-laws and committed suicide. On the basis of these allegations, the present case came to be registered and investigation is pending.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present case is an outcome of a matrimonial dispute and that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case in hand, for the reason that complainant and petitioners are relatives, as daughter of petitioners in CRM-M-44286-2026, namely, Reena (petitioner in CRM-M-43724-2026), was married to son of complainant, namely, Sandeep Kumar (now deceased).

Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the case registered against the petitioners is completely false and there is no truth in the same; rather, no abetment whatsoever was caused by the petitioners or other co-accused, compelling the son of complainant to die. Even if the allegations are taken to be true on their face value, no offence is made out merely on the allegation that family members of petitioner – Reena (in CRM-M-43724-2026) refused to send her back to her matrimonial home to stay with her husband (now deceased) or compelled him to stay as a resident son-in-law (Ghar Jamai).

Further submits that marriage of deceased – Sandeep Kumar was solemnized with petitioner – Reena about five months back and, in case there was any disagreement, deceased could have availed any other remedy available under law. Though not much relevant, learned counsel relies upon the compromise dated 03.07.2026 (P-2), which was executed by members of both the sides in the presence of some other respectable persons, and in the said compromise, petitioners (in both petitions) and other family members have been declared completely innocent.

Notice of motion.

On advance notice, Mr. Neeraj Madaan, learned Sr. DAG, Punjab, puts in appearance and accepts notice for respondent-State.

At this stage, Mr. Munish Gulati, Advocate, also puts in appearance on behalf of complainant (in both cases) and endorses the factum of settlement/compromise between the parties and removal of disagreement/confusion in regard to the death of son of complainant. Therefore, he expresses no objection in case petitioners herein (in both petitions) are granted the concession of anticipatory bail.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material available on record.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the submissions addressed and noticed here-above in the foregoing paragraphs, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy, this Court does not find any substantial reason to subject the petitioners to custodial interrogation.

Accordingly, petitioners are directed to join the investigation within two weeks from today, or as and when called by the investigating agency, and in the eventuality of the arrest, petitioners would be released on anticipatory bail, subject to their furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. The petitioners shall also be abide by all the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.).

Besides, it is directed that petitioners would hand over their respective passports to the Investigating Agency or to Court concerned, if they possess. Otherwise, would submit affidavits, disclosing the fact that they do not possess any passport.

It is also directed that before leaving country any time during trial, petitioners would seek prior permission of the Court.

With the directions issued here above, present petitions stand disposed of.

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

Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected case.