Allowed

Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Feb 2026CRM-M/55299/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail sought in a matrimonial FIR under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC. After mediation failed, the petitioner joined investigation and returned stridhan items to the wife; parties settled the matter. The High Court allowed the petition, made the interim order absolute, and imposed standard conditions including no departure from India without permission.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; interim protection from arrest made absolute, subject to conditions.

Surjit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another — Dowry and Cruelty | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

CRM-M-55299-2025 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

(115) CRM-M-55299-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 20.2.2026

Surjit Singh

......Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another .....Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH

¶10

Present: Mr. Ashok Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Yadwinder Singh, AAG, Punjab.

¶12

Ms. Meena, Advocate with Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

¶13

¶14

KIRTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)

¶15

Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS’ ), is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in case FIR No. 0180 dated 03.8.2025, under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC, registered at Police Station City Tarn Taran, District Tarn Taran.

¶16

Vide order dated 20.11.2025, the parties were directed to appear before the Mediation & Conciliation Centre of this Court to explore the possibility of amicable settlement. The said order is reproduced hereinafter.

¶17

“x x x x

¶18

Learned counsel representing State has filed status report, which is taken on record. Copy of the same is furnished to the counsel for the petitioner.

¶19

GURPREET SINGH 2026.02.20 17:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶20

CRM-M-55299-2025 (O&M) -2-

¶21

Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate appeared on behalf of respondent No.2 and filed vakalatnama, which is taken on record.

¶22

Learned counsel(s) for both the parties have expressed their desire to refer the matter to Mediation and Conciliation Centre, as there are chances of amicable settlement between the parties.

¶23

In view of above, matter is referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court to explore the possibility of compromise. Since both husband and wife are residing abroad, let the parents of both boy and girl may appear before Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court on 03.12.2025.

¶24

To await the report, list on 27.01.2026.

¶25

In the meantime, no coercive steps be taken qua petitionerSurjit Singh till next date of hearing to explore the possibility of compromise. ”

¶26

Vide order dated 27.1.2026, the petitioner was directed to join investigation. The said order is reproduced hereinafter:-

¶27

“As per report received from Mediation and Conciliation Centre, matter has remained unsettled.

¶28

During the course of arguments, learned counsel representing petitioner states that petitioner is ready to handover the gold kada and gold ring received at the time of marriage and will cooperate with Investigating Agency.

¶29

Considering the aforesaid factual position, interim is extended till next date of hearing, with further direction to join investigation.

¶30

Adjourned to 20.02.202 6.”

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submit that the matter has been duly settled between the parties and the petitioner has handed over the gold kara and gold ring to respondent No. 2.

¶32

Learned State counsel on instructions from ASI Tarsem Singh,

¶33

GURPREET SINGH 2026.02.20 17:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶34

CRM-M-55299-2025 (O&M) -3-

¶35

submits that in compliance of order dated 27.1.2026, the petitioner has joined the investigation on 04.2.2026 and is not required for any further investigation.

¶36

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petition is allowed. Order dated 27.1.2026 passed by this Court, is hereby made absolute.

¶37

This order should not be treated as "blanket" order. It will not be read granting the petitioner(s) indefinite protection from arrest. It shall be confined to the FIR mentioned ibid and will not operate in respect of any other incident that involves commission of an offence.

¶38

This order does not in any manner limit or restrict the rights or duties of the police or investigating agency to investigate into the charges against the petitioner(s).

¶39

The accused-petitioner(s) shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him or her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

¶40

The accused-petitioner(s) shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court.

¶41

The accused-petitioner(s) shall join the investigation as and when called by the police.

¶42

It will be open to the police or the investigating agency to move to this Court for a direction under Section 483(3) of BNSS, 2023 (erstwhile Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C.) to arrest the accused-petitioner(s), in the event of violation of any term, such as absconding, non-cooperating during investigation, evasion, intimidation or inducement to witnesses with a view GURPREET SINGH 2026.02.20 17:11 I attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this documentto influence outcome of the investigation or trial. Chandigarh

¶43

CRM-M-55299-2025 (O&M) -4-

¶44

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands

¶45

disposed of.

¶46

(KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE

¶47

February 20, 2026 Gurpreet Singh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶48

GURPREET SINGH 2026.02.20 17:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bijender Alias Billu Vs State of Haryana and Another

Mamta Devi Vs State of Haryana and Another

Aryan Goyal Vs State of Punjab

Harmesh Lal Vs State of Punjab and Another

Kamaljit Singh Alias Kamal Sidhu Vs State of Punjab

Puneet Kumar Vs State of Punjab