IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 09.12.2025 Date of uploading: 11.12.2025 Resham Singh ....Petitioner V/s State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Randeep Singh Dhakla, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Addl.AG, Haryana.

Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate for the complainant.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) for grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.404 dated 28.11.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Section 308(4), 61(2) of BNS, 2023, at Police Station Nissing, District Karnal.

2. The gravamen of the FIR is that on the complainant Subhash Chander, who claims to be working as a Priest/Astrologer for the past nearly 50 years, was approached by one Guddi Devi, wife of the present petitioner. At the relevant time, the complainant was present at the residence of Mahinder, son of Bal Singh, along with Ved Parkash, also son of Bal Singh, for the purpose of performing a pooja. The complainant alleges that accused Guddi Devi called him on the pretext of showing her horoscope, whereupon he reached her residence, where the petitioner (herein) alongwith one Priyanka (wife of Sandeep) were already present. The complainant has further stated that Sandeep was heavily intoxicated and expressed his desire for horoscope consultation, to which the complainant responded that he would undertake the same once Sandeep was out of influence of liquor. Thereafter, at around 10:00–11:00 AM, accused Guddi allegedly asked the complainant to step into the courtyard to discuss matters relating to Vastu of her house. At that stage, the petitioner (herein) and Sandeep are said to have left the place, leaving behind Priyanka, who was occupied with her mobile phone while seated on a chair, and the complainant, who sat upon a bed. It is further alleged that accused Guddi then touched him inappropriately and solicited sexual intercourse, to which he expressed his inability on account of being diabetic. When the complainant attempted to leave, Guddi allegedly misbehaved with him and a scuffle ensued. Priyanka is stated to have, in the meantime, recorded certain video clips without his consent. The complainant thereafter returned to his home. Thereafter, at about 01:00 PM, the complainant received a phone call from accused Geeta, who informed him that they had recorded a video clip and demanded money, threatening to defame him by circulating the video on WhatsApp if he failed to comply. It is further alleged that the complainant under fear yielded to the abvoesaid illegal monetary demands. On 27.11.2025, at about 05:00 PM, he again received a demand for money. Acting upon his application, the SDM, Karnal was appointed as Duty Magistrate and joined the police team. A trap was ₹

laid and when the complainant handed over 10,000/- in the denomination of ₹

500/- currency notes, accused Guddi Devi was apprehended at the spot with the said money in her possession. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the instant FIR came to be registered against the accused persons.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated, as no specific role has been attributed to him in the alleged offence. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner has never demanded any money from the complainant, nor are there any direct or specific allegations against him. It is further submitted that the only specific role is attributed to co-accused Guddi Devi, who stands arrested and recovery has also been effected from her. It is the case of the petitioner that being merely the husband of accused Guddi Devi, he has been unnecessarily roped in, despite there being no act on his part in the commission of the offence in question. Moreover,