IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 08.1.2026 Aman alias Jajji alias Jajj Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Sukhmeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Aakanksha Gupta, AAG, Punjab.

****

KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in case FIR No. 459 dated 21.12.2023, under Sections 354, 354-A, 354-C, 354-D, 323, 379-B, 506 and

509 IPC, registered at Police Station City Faridkot, District Faridkot.

2. Reply by way of an affidavit of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Faridkot, District Faridkot, has been filed by the State in the Registry.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case by the complainant. In fact, the petitioner and the complainant were having a love affair but due to differences, their relationship was not acceptable to the family of the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant has not raised any alarm at the time she was allegedly forced to sit on the motorcycle. Furthermore, the complainant has also not made any complaint to the police with regard to the alleged incidents. It has further been submitted that there is a delay of more than one year in lodging the present FIR, and the allegations leveled therein are vague and omnibus..

4. Per contra, the learned State counsel opposes the present petition. It is submitted that the petitioner is the prime accused, and specific and serious allegations have been levelled against him.

5. Learned State counsel, while placing reliance on the reply dated 09.12.2025, submits that the delay in lodging the present FIR occurred due to the fact that the prosecutrix, for the sake of honour of the family, did not disclose to anybody about the incident of outraging her modesty by the petitioner, which took place in the year 2022. However, when the petitioner kept on harassing the complainant/prosecutrix, and came to her P.G. on 09.8.2023 and tried to trespass the said premises, the matter was taken to the Panchayat by the prosecutrix and her family, whereupon the petitioner threatened them. It was thereafter that a complaint was made by the prosecutrix against the petitioner, on the basis of which the present FIR was registered. It is also submitted that during investigation, the prosecutrix produced a pen drive containing call records with the petitioner, and video recording of the petitioner visiting the P.G., where the prosecutrix was residing, and also the print outs of whatsapp chat made by the petitioner from different mobile numbers, which corroborate the allegations levelled by the prosecutrix against the petitioner. It has further been submitted that the case of the prosecution is duly supported by the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., wherein she has reiterated the allegations levelled in the FIR. Moreover, the police has made several raids at the house of the petitioner, but he has been evading his arrest Therefore, it is prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

6. Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsels for the parties.

7. In Srikant Upadhyay and others vs. State of Bihar and another, 2024 (INSC) 202 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

“It is thus obvious from the catena of decisions dealing with bail that even while clarifying that arrest should be the last option and it should be restricted to cases where arrest is imperative in the facts and circumstances of a case, the consistent view is that the grant of anticipatory bail shall be restricted to exceptional circumstances. In other words, the position is that the power to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438, Cr.P.C. is an exceptional power and should be exercised only in exceptional cases and not as a matter of course. Its object is to ensure tha