IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

207 Date of decision : 22.08.2025 Tarsem Kumar ….Petitioner V/S State of Punjab and another ….Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present: Mr. Vikramjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Anup Singh, A.A.G., Punjab.

None for respondent No.2.

****

NAMIT KUMAR , J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.55 dated 13.05.2025 registered under Sections 333, 115(2), 76 & 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act (Amended), 2012, 2019 at Police Station Kotbhai, District Sri Muktsar Sahib.

2. As per office report, notice issued to respondent No.2 has been received back with the report that she refused to accept the same with the statement that she is 14-15 years old and that her parents are confined in Jail.

3. Status report by way of an affidavit of Sh. Avtar Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Gidderbaha, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, on behalf of the respondent-State, filed in the Registry is taken on record.

4. Brief facts of the case are that on 13.05.2025, the victim had made a statement before the police that on 10.05.2025 at about 4:00 p.m, while she was going to throw garbage, Soni Kumar and Tarsem (the present petitioner) were standing on the way. On seeing her, they started abusing her. When she returned home, they chased her and also entered inside her house. Soni Kumar caught hold her from her arms and Tarsem started beating her and gave her a fist blow. In the meanwhile, Preet, wife of Soni Kumar, came to the spot and instigated them, saying that they should teach a lesson to victim and her family for helping Kala Ram. Thereafter, Preet and Soni Kumar torn her clothes, insulted her and outraged her modesty. When she raised an alarm, her uncle Jagsir Ram came to the spot and tried to save her upon which, the accused caused injuries on his head and other body parts. On the basis of the said statement, the instant FIR was registered.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case in order to pressurize the petitioner to enter into compromise in FIR No.33 dated 03.04.2025 registered under Sections 76 and 115(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 at the same Police Station Kotbhai, District Sri Muktsar Sahib against Kala Ram. He submits that the FIR in question is a counter-blast to FIR No.33 dated 03.04.2025. He submits that the petitioner is not involved in any other case. He further submits that no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner and he is ready to join the investigation. Therefore, the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel, while referring to the averments made in the status report, has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the ground that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. He further submits that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for thorough investigation of the case, therefore, he does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. As per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Pradeep Sharma : (2014) 2 Supreme Court Cases 171, power exercisable under Section 438 Cr.P.C. (now Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) is somewhat extraordinary in character and it is to be exercised only in exceptional cases, where it appears that the person may be falsely implicated or where there are reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely to otherwise misuse his/her liberty. Also in determining the parameters in granting anti