IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 13.10.2025 Rahul Alias Rahul Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and Another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Shakti Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Anmol Malik, DAG, Haryana.

****

KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in case FIR No.73 dated 28.06.2025, under Sections 64(2)(m) and 69 of BNS, registered at Police Station Women Police Station, Sirsa, District Sirsa.

2. Vide order dated 21.08.2025, while issuing notice of motion, the petitioner was directed to join investigation. The said order is reproduced hereinafter:-

“Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in case FIR No.73 dated28.6.2025, under Sections 64(2)(m) and 69 of BNS, registered at Police Station Women Police Station, Sirsa, District Sirsa.

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case on the statement of the complainant, levelling allegations of establishing physical relations on the false pretext of marriage. It is submitted that in fact, the petitioner and the complainant were in a long standing consensual relationship. There was neither any coercion, fraud or misrepresentation, including any false promise of marriage, on the part of the petitioner any point in time to obtain consent for the relationship. Rather, it is pointed that the complainant has also moved similar complaints against different individuals, levelling similar allegations.

It is further submitted that there is an unexplained delay of over 5 months in the registration of the FIR, if computed from the date of last alleged incident as per the FIR. To buttress his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Ansar Mohammad V/s State of Rajasthan and another 2022 SCC Online SC 886. Reference is also made to the observations given by the Apex Court in the case of Mahesh Damu Khare Vs. The State of Maharashtra, passed in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 4326 of 2018, whereby it was held that for offence of rape on false promise to marry, physical relationship must be shown to be only based on promise of marriage.

Notice of motion.

Ms. Saumya Ahluwalia, Sr. DAG Haryana waives service of notice on behalf of respondent-State and prays for some time to file reply. It is submitted that since serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner, therefore, he is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail.

One of the main pillars of jurisprudence on which the criminaljustice system is based, is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. If seen in that context, the provision of anticipatory bail, in its essence, can be understood as a safeguard to prevent the curtailment of liberty of an individual, a cherished constitutional guarantee, in circumstances where arrest may be unwarranted, arbitrary, or mala fide. This discretionary power, trite to say, must be exercised judiciously, based on considerations, which include but are not limited to, the nature and gravity of the allegations, the antecedents of the accused, the possibility of the fleeing from justice, and the likelihood of the evidence being tampered with and witnesses being influenced.

Reverting to the case in hand, prima facie the petitioner and the complainant were having a long standing consensual relationship. All the contentions made herein including the averment with reference to false promise of marriage, are disputed questions of facts, which shall be determined during the course of trial.

In view of the above, the petitioner is directed to join investigation before the Investigating Agency/Officer. He shall abide by the following conditio