The court emphasized that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy, requiring exceptional circumstances, and must balance individual rights with public interest and the need for effective investigation.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

Since both these bail applications emanate from a common F.I.R.; hence, they are taken up together for disposal by way of a common judgment.

2. The petitioners have filed the present petitions seeking pre-arrest bail. It has been asserted that F.I.R. No. 14 of 2025, dated 21.03.2025, was registered at Police Station Shilai, District Simour, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 64, 89, 238 of Bhartiya Nayaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). As per the prosecution, the victim and petitioner Ravinder Singh were in a relationship with each other. Talks of their marriage were going on between their families. The victim got pregnant, and she was permitted to reside with the petitioner, Ravinder Singh. One day, petitioner Kamla Devi mixed something in her food, and the victim aborted her fetus. The allegations in the F.I.R. are false. The petitioners are apprehensive about their arrest. They are law-abiding citizens. They would join the investigation as and when directed to do so. The petitioners would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose upon them. Hence, the present petitions.

3. The petitions are opposed by filing a status report asserting that the victim used to talk to petitioner, Ravinder Singh, for about two years before reporting the matter to the police. Petitioner Ravinder Singh promised to marry the victim. He celebrated his birthday on 07.01.2025 and visited the victim’s house. He told the victim that they were about to marry and had forced sexual relations with her. The victim conducted the pregnancy test, and the result was found to be positive. The victim told petitioner, Ravinder Singh, about this fact. The petitioner told her that he did not care, and the baby belonged to the victim. The victim narrated this incident to her mother, and her father called Ravinder Singh’s father. He (the victim’s father) threatened to report the matter to the police. An affidavit of marriage was executed by the petitioner, Ravinder Singh. She went to the house of petitioners. Her condition deteriorated on 16.03.2025, and she started bleeding. She narrated this fact to petitioner Kamla Devi, who told her to go inside the room. The victim aborted the foetus, and petitioner Kamla Devi carried the foetus with her. The police registered the F.I.R. and conducted the investigation. The police seized the material objects. The victim was subjected to medical examination, and the Medical Officer reported that the victim had aborted two weeks before her examination. The petitioners are yet to be interrogated, and the product of conception is to be traced. Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard Mr. Tek Chand, learned counsel for the petitioner(s) in both the petitions and Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents/State,in both the petitions.

5. Mr. Tek Chand, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated. The allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute the commission of a cognizable offence. It is a case of a relationship turned sour. The F.I.R. shows that the victim was taken by the petitioners to their house, and there was no false promise. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, it was prayed that the present petitions be allowed and the petitioners be released on bail.

6. Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, submitted that petitioner -Ravinder Singh, had raped the victim, and the petitioner, Kamla Devi, had administered something to her due to which she aborted her fetus. The police are to interrogate the petitioners. Therefore, he prayed that the present petitions be dismissed.

7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

8. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9