IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

202 Date of decision : 05.09.2025 Sumit ….Petitioner V/S State of Haryana and another ….Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present: Mr. Mohit Khatkar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Priyanka Sadar, Senior D.A.G., Haryana.

Ms. Prerna Malhotra, Advocate as Legal Aid Counsel for respondent No.2/complainant.

****

NAMIT KUMAR , J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNSS) seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.52 dated 01.05.2025 registered under Sections 4 & 14 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 and Sections 65(1), 77, 96, 127(2), 137 & 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Women Police Station Jind, District Jind.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 01.05.2025, complainant, who is mother of the victim, made a statement before the police that on 16.01.2025, she along with her daughter, who is aged about 14 years, had gone to Civil Hospital for taking medicine, where they met Sumit Kumar (the present petitioner). During the process of taking medicine, the petitioner enticed her minor daughter on false pretext of eating Panipuri and took her to Hotel Shahi Mahal, Rani Talab, Jind in his car, where he committed rape upon her minor daughter. He also clicked obscene video of her daughter in his mobile and threatened her daughter that if she told about this incident to anybody then he will make her video viral on social media. She further stated that the petitioner had also threatened her daughter that police cannot do any harm to him as he is posted at Police Headquarter in Haryana Police. Since then, her daughter is living the life under depression. The petitioner is still mounting pressure on her daughter to meet him and her daughter is apprehending danger to her life at the hands of the petitioner. On the basis of the said complaint, the instant FIR was registered.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is working as Clerk in Police Headquarter at Panchkula, is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case by the complainant only to extort money from him. Moreover, there is an undue and unexplained delay of more than three months in lodging the FIR as the alleged incident took place on 16.01.2025 and the FIR has been registered on 01.05.2025. In fact, the petitioner was earlier known to the complainant and on 16.01.2025, the complainant had herself called him at Civil Hospital, Jind. He submits that it is highly improbable that in the presence of complainant, the petitioner took her minor daughter in his car without her knowledge or intervention. Further, there is no credible evidence such as hotel records or eye- witness exists to support the allegations made by the complainant. 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.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, 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 allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature as he has committed rape upon a minor girl. She 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.

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

6. As per the prosecution, on 16.01.2025, the complainant along with her minor daughter had gone to Civil Hospital, Jind, where they met the petitioner and when the complainant went to get medicine, the petitioner lured her minor daughter on false pretext of eating Panipuri and