IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 09.02.2026 IRSHAD .....PETITIONER Vs.

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER .....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEERJA K. KALSON Present: Mr. Talim Hussain, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Atul Gaur, AAG, Haryana.

*****

NEERJA K. KALSON , J.

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.111 dated 28.07.2021 (wrongly mentioned as 26.07.2021), under Sections 376, 365, 506 of IPC, 1860 and Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012, registered at Police Station Bichhor, District Nuh, Haryana (Annexure P-1).

2. The learned trial Court, after hearing rival contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner-accused, learned State counsel and after going through the case file carefully, observed that the present petitioner has been summoned by the trial Court as an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The complainant/father of the victim, in his complaint given to the police, levelled specific allegations against the petitioner that he had committed rape upon his minor daughter and had also threatened to kill her and her parents if she disclosed the incident to anyone. The victim, in her testimony before the Court as PW-1, also raised specific allegations against the petitioner that he and other two accused committed rape upon her and threatened to kill her. Keeping in view the grievous nature of the allegations, the nature of the offence and the punishment prescribed thereunder, the learned trial Court did not deem it fit to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner and dismissed the application vide order dated 24.12.2025 (Annexure P-8).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the prosecutrix, in her statement recorded before the Police and under Section 164 Cr.P.C recorded before the CWC, did not name the present petitioner-accused. He submitted that these discrepancies go to the root of the matter and vitiates the summoning order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. itself, entitling the petitioner to anticipatory bail.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the present petition arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail.

5. This Court deem it apposite to observe, at the outset, that the jurisdiction vested under Section 438 Cr.P.C/Section 482 BNSS is discretionary and is to be exercised with exception, particularly in cases involving grave and serious offences. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565, while delineating the controversy of anticipatory bail, emphasise that it is not to be granted as a matter of concern and that the Court must consider various factors, including the nature and gravity of the accusation, the antecedents of the petitioner and the possibility of fleeing from justice or tampering with the evidence.

6. Adverting to the submission advanced concerning the discrepancies in the petitioner’s status, it is well settled law that at the stage of anticipatory bail, the Court is not expected to undertake a mini-trial or meticulously analyse the evidence to determine the guilt or innocence of the petitioner. The scope of inquiry is limited to ascertain whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused and whether grant of pre-arrest bail would frustrate the investigation or trial. The discrepancies pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the prosecutrix did not name the accused in her police statement or under Section 164 Cr.P.C., are matters which would be thoroughly looked into, tested and appreciated at the stage of trial by leading evidence from both sides. These cannot constitute a ground to grant anticipatory bail at this pre-trial stage, especially when specific allegations have been levelled by the complainant and corroborated by the victim in her