IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:- 23.09.2025 Abrar ……Petitioner Versus State of Haryana. ……Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN ****

Present: Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Paras Talwar, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Liaqat Ali, Advocat for the complainant.

ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed seeking the grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 74 dated 20.05.2025, registered under Sections 351(3), 64(1), and 77 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 6 and 12 of the POCSO Act, at Police Station Punhana, District Nuh.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, after referring to the contents of the FIR, submits that there is an inordinate delay of 20 days in lodging the FIR. He further submits that the FIR itself records that the complainants were attempting to compromise the matter, which, according to counsel for the petitioner, was in fact an attempt to extort money from the petitioner. It is further submitted that the medical report of the victim clearly states that there was no prior record of assault. Learned counsel argues that the entire effort is aimed at maligning the petitioner and entangling him in litigation. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe v.

State of Maharashtra and Anr., (2006) 10 SCC 92, wherein it was held:

It is true that in a rape case the accused could be convicted on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if it is capable of inspiring of confidence in the mind of the court. If the version given by the prosecutrix is unsupported by any medical evidence or the whole surrounding circumstances are highly improbable and belie the case set up by the prosecutrix, the court shall not act on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix. The courts shall be extremely careful in accepting the sole testimony of the prosecutrix when the entire case is improbable and unlikely to happen.

3. Counsel further submits that the testimony of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. does not name the present petitioner. Interestingly, in the said testimony she has mentioned the name of somebody else at whose residence the said alleged incident took place, whereas in the FIR, the name of somebody else is stated to be mentioned. It is also submitted that the date of the incident is not disclosed in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel, assisted by counsel for the complainant, submits that the matter is still at the stage of investigation and as per the medical report, the hymen has been ruptured, and as per the opinion of the Doctor the possibility of sexual assault cannot be ruled out.

The State counsel vehemently relies on the age of the prosecutrix, which is slightly over 13 years, and argues that granting anticipatory bail, at this stage would hamper the investigation. It is submitted that the mobile phone is yet to be recovered, and according to the FIR, the prosecutrix was allegedly blackmailed with obscene videos purportedly in the possession of the petitioner.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length.

6. Considering the age of the prosecutrix, which is just over 13 years and merely non-mentioning of the date of incident in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. does not entitle the petitioner to the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail. Moreover the name of the petitioner is very explicitly mentioned in the FIR as well as in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein complainant very specifically recorded that it was petitioner who sexually exploit the victim, therefore, the arguments raised by the learned counsel for petitioner does not found any truth. Furthermore, the judgment relied upon by the petitioner pertains to an appeal against conviction and the parameters laid down therein would be applicable at the stage of trial.

7. At this stage, considering serious allegations