IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 02.09.2025 RITESH YADAV ... Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Mr. Vishal Garg Narwana, Advocate, Mr. Khushwant Saharan, Advocate Mr. Arishdeep Mraad, Advocate and Ms. Chetna Rao, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Kshitij Bharti, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.

Mr. G.S. Sullar, Advocate, Ms. Devaki Anand Sullar, Advocate and Mr. Haneesh Kumar, Advocate for the complainant.

****

SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL, J. (ORAL)

Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No.

006 dated 04.01.2025 under Sections 376(2)(n) of Indian Penal Code and Section 04 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Mujesar District Faridabad. This is first petition for anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that respondent No. 2-

complainant in the FIR had attained the age of majority as was clear from a reading of the FIR itself. He further submitted that she was in relationship with the petitioner for 05 years i.e. from 07.12.2019 to May 2024. He referred to her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS, on 05.01.2025, wherein she stated that she was 23 years of age. He further relied upon copy of Aadhar Card (Annexure P-4) and progress report of N.D. Public School, Faridabad (Annexure P-5), relating to the prosecutrix, wherein her date of birth was recorded as 12.12.2001. He urged that considering the age of the prosecutrix and the admitted version of prolonged relationship with the petitioner, no offence under Section 376 IPC was made out and in this context, referred to judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case bearing Criminal Appeal No. 183 of 2014 decided on 06.02.2025 titled Tilku @ Tilak Singh Vs. The State of Uttarakhand, Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP(CRL.) No. 8549 of 2023 decided on 03.03.2025 titled Rajnish Singh @ Soni Vs. State of U.P. and Another, Deepak Gulati Vs. State of Haryana 2013(7) SCC 675. It was further argued that allegation of sexual intercourse on the promise of marriage did not constitute an offence under Section 376 IPC as there was nothing to show that intention of the petitioner was mala fide. Reference was also made to statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 183 BNSS, wherein she herself conceded that she used to meet the petitioner in Oyo Hotel and had physical relations with him. Learned counsel argued that the FIR was an abuse of the process of law. Further, in pursuance of order dated 25.03.2025 of this Court, petitioner had joined investigation and deserved to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

Learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant/victim opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail referring to Annexure R-3, copy of Secondary Certificate Examination of Board of School Education Haryana of the prosecutrix, wherein her date of birth was recorded as 12.12.2004. It was argued that the Certificate prevailed over the version in the FIR and was bound to be considered by the Court in view of Section 94(2)(i) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2020. It was, thus submitted that prosecutrix was less than 15 years of age on the date of commission of offence and in view of the specific bar of Section 482(4) BNSS, the application for anticipatory bail was not maintainable. It was urged that petitioner performed marriage with some other girl in December 2024 and had been sending money to the prosecutrix till November 18.11.2024, which clearly implied that he never had any intention to marry her.

Refuting the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner, referred to Ram Chander Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. 2025(3) RCR(Criminal) 28 submitting that Section 438(4) Cr.P.C. did not create an absolute bar for granting anticipatory bail to a person accused of offence punishable under Section 376(3), 376DA and 376DB IPC and Court could grant bail in case no prima facie case was made out. He also relied upon