204 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-22503-2025 Date of Decision:- 16.01.2026 SATENDER ALIAS SATENDRA PRATAP SINGH ....Petitioner Vs.

STATE OF HARYANA ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI Present:- Mr. Bhagwan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Abhishek Yadav, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma and Mr. Lakshay Saini, Advocates for the complainant.

*****

AMARJOT BHATTI, J.

1. Petitioner Satender @ Satendra Pratap Singh has filed instant petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.93 dated 11.03.2024 under Section 363 of IPC (Section 366A of IPC added later-on) registered at Police Station Model Town Rewari, District Rewari.

2. As per facts of the case, complainant ‘SA’ gave his statement that his daughter ‘S’ about 17 years left the house on 11.03.2024 around 3.30 pm and did not return home. The missing report was lodged on the same day.

As per status report, victim was recovered on 16.03.2024. Her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 17.03.2024. She had refused for her medical examination. Investigation in this case is still going on.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in-fact petitioner and the daughter of the complainant were in love with each other. They tried to convince their parents for marriage but the parents of alleged victim were not in favour of this relationship. Therefore, petitioner and the daughter of the complainant ran away from their respective house in order to get married. Marriage could not be performed since the victim was minor. Without appreciating the facts of the case, his anticipatory bail application was declined by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari vide order dated 16.04.2025 (Annexure P-2). Arrest of the petitioner was stayed in this case vide order dated 14.05.2025. He is ready to abide by the terms and conditions of bail order. Therefore, his anticipatory bail petition may be allowed.

4. Bail petition is opposed by learned counsel representing State of Haryana. Along with the status report, there is copy of admit card of the victim, in which her date of birth is mentioned as 24.11.2006. Statement of the victim recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. is Annexure R-2. It is pointed out that the victim has fully supported the allegations levelled against the petitioner. Considering the facts and the gravity of offence, petitioner is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail.

5. I have gone through the record. Petitioner at the time of filing of this bail petition is 22 years of age whereas victim was around 17 years of age. Facts mentioned in the bail petition confirmed that petitioner as well as the victim left the house to get married. Later-on, they could not perform marriage since the victim was a minor. Statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. indicates that they were going from one place to another. Victim was left alone at Jhansi from where victim contacted the police and was brought back to Rewari. Allegations are specific and serious in nature. Considering the gravity of offence, I do not find a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail and the same is, accordingly, declined.

6. Pending misc. application, if any, stands disposed of.

(AMARJOT BHATTI)

JUDGE

16.01.2026 s(cid:1)(cid:2)