JUDGMENT :

NEERJA K. KALSON, J.

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.0032 dated 25.02.2026, under Section 75, 74, 115(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (Amended), 2012, 2019, registered at Police Station Bhagta Bhaika, District Bathinda (Annexure P-1).

2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the instant FIR was registered on the statement of the prosecutrix, who disclosed her date of birth as 22.10.2008. It is alleged that her parents are labourers and she is a student of 12th standard. On 23.02.2026, at about 8:30 a.m., she was waiting for a bus at the bus stand to go to school along with 15–16 other girls. At that time, both the accused namely Manpreet Singh and Gurtej Singh along with an unknown person were also present there. When the bus arrived and she proceeded to board the same, both the accused named above allegedly caught hold of her, forcibly pulled her and made her sit in a car, wherein the said unknown person was already present. It is further alleged that accused Manpreet Singh touched her private parts, and upon her objection, Manpreet Singh along with Gurtej Singh inflicted blows on her head, causing injuries. Thereafter, the accused persons fled from the spot in the said car. As per the statement, she became unconscious and fell to the ground. Upon regaining consciousness, she found herself at her school, where her teachers were giving her water. Subsequently, her family members reached the school and took her home. On 24.02.2026, she was admitted to the Civil Hospital by her father, whereafter her statement led to the registration of the present FIR.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the complainant and the co-accused Manpreet Singh were known to each other and were in a relationship for the past 3–4 years. It is contended that the true facts of the case have been deliberately suppressed and distorted, and that, in reality, the prosecutrix had voluntarily taken a lift on the motorcycle of co- accused Manpreet Singh from the bus stand to reach her school on the alleged day of occurrence.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that when the mother of the prosecutrix came to know about the same, she, in a fit of anger, immediately reached the school and forcibly took her daughter back home, whereafter she allegedly administered beatings to her for having taken a lift from the co-accused Manpreet Singh. It is contended that thereafter, on 24.02.2026, the prosecutrix was taken to the Civil Hospital, where the MLR was prepared, and the present case has been falsely engineered thereafter.

5. Learned counsel further submits that there is an unexplained delay of two days in the registration of the FIR, which casts a serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution story. It is argued that the allegations of wrongful restraint, assault, outraging of modesty, and forcible abduction by putting the prosecutrix into a car are wholly false and constitute a concocted story, introduced with an ulterior motive to falsely implicate the petitioner. It is further contended that there is no direct or cogent evidence on record to establish the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offences.

6. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no useful purpose would be served by subjecting the petitioner to custodial interrogation, as he is ready to join the investigation and there is no likelihood of his absconding.

7. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer and submits that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are grave in nature and are duly supported by medical evidence. It is argued that the medico-legal report dated 24.02.2026, place