Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRM-M/42661/2026 of RANDHIR SINGH AND ORS Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 2 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-42661-2026(O&M) Date of decision: 02.09.2026 RANDHIR SINGH AND ORS ...Petitioners Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Preetwiner Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-42661-2026(O&M) Date of decision: 02.09.2026 RANDHIR SINGH AND ORS ...Petitioners Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Preetwiner Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Rahul Jindal, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Sahibjeet Singh Sandhu, Advocate for the applicant-complainant.
*** VIKRAM AGGARWAL,
J. (Oral) The prayer in the present petition preferred by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short the “BNSS”) is for the grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.122, dated 23.07.2026, registered at Police Station Dhanaula, District Barnala, under Sections 318 (4), 82(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short the “BNS”).
2. On 03.08.2026, the following order was passed by this Court:- “Prayer in the present petition preferred by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short the “BNSS”) is for the grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.122, dated 23.07.2026 registered under Sections 318 (4), 82(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short the “BNS”) at Police Station Dhanaula, District Barnala. On the complaint of one Paramjit Kaur, the FIR in question was NEERAJ
registered. The allegation is that without the marriage of petitioner No.1 with Paramjit Kaur having been dissolved, petitioner No.1 contracted second marriage. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 420 IPC has been added only with a view to make the offence non-bailable and otherwise Section 494 IPC is a bailable offence. He further submits that the petitioner was not in a position to file a bail application before the Court of Sessions on account of the Bar Association abstaining from work, which compelled him to approach this Court by way of the present petition. He submits that the petitioner has clean antecedents and is willing to join investigation and abide by any condition imposed by the Court. Notice of motion. Mr. Ravinder Singh, DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. List on 02.09.2026. In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to join investigation. In the event of arrest, he shall be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer, subject to compliance of the provisions of Section 482(2) BNSS.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in compliance with the aforesaid order dated 03.08.2026, the petitioners have duly joined the investigation.
4. Learned State counsel, on instructions from Investigating Officer who is present in Court, submits that in compliance with the order dated 03.08.2026, the petitioners have duly joined the investigation and their custodial interrogation is not required.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant-complainant submits that the applicant is the first wife of the petitioner No.1 and seeks to be impleaded as a party. He further submits that it is a clear-cut case of cheating as even the second wife was not aware that the first marriage had not been dissolved. He submits that under the circumstances, his custodial interrogation would be NEERAJ
required.
6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
7. Concededly, in compliance with the order dated 03.08.2026 passed by this Court, the petitioners have joined the investigation. The offence of bigamy is punishable under Section 494 IPC and is a bailable offence. As to whether the ingredients of cheating are proved or not shall be determined during the course of trial. In the considered opinion of this Court, it is not a case of custodial interrogation. Since the petitioners have joined investigation and it has categorically been stated by learned State Counsel that their custodial interrogation is not required, this Court finds no reason to deny the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
8. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. The order dated 03.08.2026 passed by this Court is made absolute, subject to compliance of the provisions as envisaged under Section 482(2) BNSS.
9. The applications filed by the applicant stand disposed of.
(VIKRAM AGGARWAL) 02.09.2026
JUDGE neeraj Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No Whether Reportable : Yes No NEERAJ