IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-64679 of 2025(O&M)

Date of decision: 17.11.2025 Mohit ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present : Dr. Pankaj Nanhera, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pradeep Duhan, Advocate and Mr. Sachin Jangra, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL, J .

1. Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case vide FIR No.267 dated 08.09.2025, under Sections 140(3) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Sections 4, 17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Sadar Ballabgarh, District Faridabad. This is his first application for anticipatory bail.

2. Prosecutrix, aged 17 years 10 months alleged that her father was a Class-IV employee and she had passed 8^th grade from Government Secondary School, village Prahladpur, Faridabad. Mohit son of Rame, was known to her for two months. In September, 2025, she spoke to him 3-4 times on WhatsApp. She told him not to call her as her family would find out but he kept on calling her. On 07.09.2025, at about 5 PM, when she was coming from Shiv Mandir after offering prayers, Mohit came in a grey colour car which was parked near the temple gate. He opened the car door, forcibly pulled her inside and locked it. There was another boy in the car who she did not know. The person who owned the car was talking about buying cattle feed. They went to Janouli, bought cattle feed from a shop. Thereafter, they took her to a hotel near Ballabgarh Bus Stand. The other boy dropped Mohit and her outside the hotel and drove away. Mohit then took her to a room where he forcibly committed wrong act with her. The next day on 08.09.2025, around 2 PM, Mohit left her at Asawati. From there her uncle Bendu brought her back to village Prahladpur. Mohit left her alone and ran away.

3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecutrix had love affair with the petitioner and both wanted to marry each other. The consensual relationship was evident from the contents of the FIR itself and the fact that it was petitioner’s uncle who brought her back to her parents home. Referring to police report, Annexure P-2 he submitted that prosecutrix could not even identify the place of occurrence. He thus prayed that petitioner be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Learned State counsel strongly opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail on the ground of serious nature of allegations. He submits that there was concrete medical evidence against the petitioner and the consent of the prosecutrix was of no avail. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner was required for eliciting essential facts and for recovery of car. He further submits that in her statement under Section 183 BNSS as well, prosecutrix had reiterated her first version. Moreover, petitioner was involved in another case vide FIR No. 191, dated 31.10.2025, under Sections 318(4), 36(3), 338, 340, 61 Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and considering his antecedents he did not deserves to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

6. In the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others 2010 SCC Online SC 137, Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the guiding factors and parameters to be taken into consideration, while dealing with anticipatory bails. The relevant extract of the judgment reads as under:-

“i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made;

ii. The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence;

iii. The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; iv. The possibility of the acucsed’s likelihood to repeat similar or the other offences.

v. Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the