IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

205 Date of decision : 23.09.2025 Jagdish ….Appellant V/S State of Haryana and another ….Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present: Mr. L.M. Gulati, Advocate for the appellant.

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

Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2.

****

NAMIT KUMAR , J. (ORAL)

1. The appellant has filed the instant appeal challenging the order dated 02.06.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court, Sirsa, whereby an application filed by the appellant under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/ Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.17 dated 21.05.2025 registered under Sections 115, 333, 351(2) & 74 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(2)(V)(A) & 3(1)(ii) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 at Women Police Station Mandi Dabwali, District Sirsa, has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 21.05.2025, the prosecutrix made a complaint to the police alleging therein that she is a household lady. She has two children. Her husband doing a work of labourer. She does not keep good health. About one month back, their neighbour Jagdish alias Bhagta (the present appellant), who worships Hanuman Ji, came to their house along with her husband and gave her a Dora (thread) and instructed her to tie it on her hand and then she will be fine. Thereafter, the appellant started meeting her husband. On 16.05.2025 at about 09.00 AM, when she was alone in her house then the appellant came to her house and on finding her alone, he demanded water from her and when she went to the kitchen to bring water, then he caught hold her from behind and touched her breast. When she raised objection, he started scuffling with her and threatened her that this time she (Dhedhni) has been saved but in future, he would kill her if she told about the incident to anyone. She did not tell about the incident to anyone, as she was not feeling well. However, she told about the incident to her husband later on. On the basis of the said statement, the instant FIR was registered.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that there is unreasonable and unexplained delay of 05 days in lodging of the FIR as the incident took place on 16.05.2025 and the FIR was registered on 21.05.2025. He submits that the story made by the complainant is concocted one. In fact the complainant had taken money from the appellant and the appellant requested her so many times to repay the money but to no avail. He submits that the appellant, who is 65 years old, has clean antecedents. He further submits that no recovery is to be effected from the appellant and he is ready to join the investigation. Therefore, the impugned order dated 02.06.2025 may be set aside and the appellant may be granted anticipatory bail.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant, while referring to the averments made in the status report, has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant on the ground that the appellant entered into the house of the prosecutrix and tired to molest her and also abused her with caste based remarks. She further submits that custodial interrogation of the appellant 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 16.05.2025 at about 09.00 AM, when the prosecutrix was alone in her house, the appellant came to her house and demanded water from her and when she went to kitchen to fetch water, then he caught hold her from behind and tried to molest her. When she raised objection,