IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

209 CRM-M-53788-2025 (O&M)

Decided on: 04.12.2025 MONIKA SHARMA AND ANOTHER . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER . . . Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH PRESENT: Mr. Arshdeep Singh Brar, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Ms. Aakanksha Gupta, AAG Punjab.

Mr. Pushp Jain, Advocate for respondent No.2.

****

KIRTI SINGH , J. (Oral)

Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners, in case FIR No.150 dated 07.08.2025, under Sections 64, 65 of BNS, 2023 (Section 4 of POCSO Act added later on), registered at Police Station City-2, Mansa District Mansa.

2. The contents of the aforesaid FIR are reproduced herein below:-

“Statement of Shivshankar Sharma son of Harish Chand Sharma, resident of Ward No. 02, Gali No.04, Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Mansa, aged about 35 years, mobile No. xxx. Stated that I am resident of above said address, I work as a driver, I was married to Monika Sharma, resident of Bhikhi and from our loins, two daughters were born, xxx, aged 16, and xxx, who is studying in class 8th, aged about 14 years. Due to quarrels with my wife many times, a compromise was arrived at p.s. Bhikhi because I used to restrain my daughters from going out with my wife. Upon which, my wife had forbidden from taking them out without informing me. But I used to go out for daily work and when I returned home, my daughter xxx would remain silent, whom I asked many times what happened to my daughter. She said with her full heart that she wanted to tell me something for à long time, but she could not tell me. I asked her by taking in full confidence, upon which my daughter xxx told me that last 20/25 days ago in the month of July, our neighbour Veena wife of Vijay Kumar, 2025.12.05 16:47 resident of Mansa called her home on the pretext of some work and my daughter went there, where Bhim Sain son of Radhe Sham, resident of Sidhu Hospital, Mansa was already present and she made my daughter xxx sit in a separate room with Bhim Sain and went out of the room herself. Then Bhim Sain locked the door and forcibly made physical relation with my daughter and lateron, Veena Rani threatened my daughter that if she tells anyone about this incident, then she will not let her be married and she also told my daughter that Bhim Sain also pays her. school fees. Thereafter, Veena Rani and her sister Ritu Rani wife of Chiranji Garg, resident of Ward No.02, Mansa also called my daughter to their house one day and by introducing her to Mandeep Singh alias Babbu, resident of Jawaharke made forcible physical relation with her and Amandeep Singh alias Aman, resident of Kot Da Tibba, Mansa has also had physical relations with my daughter many times. Amandeep Singh studies at Gandhi School, Mansa. Now, they were threatening my daughter, but today, my daughter has told me the entire facts. I was coming to inform you about the rape committed on my daughter xxx, but you have met me. Legal action may kindly be taken against the said persons. I got recorded my statement before you, read it and heard it, which is correct.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case. Petitioner No.1 is the wife, whereas petitioner No.2 is the mother-in-law of the complainant- Shiv Shanker Sharma. It is submitted that the FIR in question was initially lodged by the complainant against certain co-accused, alleging the commission of offence of rape upon his minor daughter. It is contended that the petitioners were initially not named in the FIR but were subsequently nominated as accused on the basis of the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 183 BNSS, in which it is submitted, she was compelled to make by the complainant, with the sole motive to harass petitioner No.1, since after she had left him due to constant harassment. Learned counsel submits that the re