##PAGE1##

CRM-M-38643-2025 (O&M) -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

(113) CRM-M-38643-2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 01.04.2026

RAHUL ......Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER .....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. C.S. Saini, Advocate for

Mr. Sandeep Kumar Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Anmol Malik, DAG, Haryana.

None for the complainant.

****

KIRTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.105 dated 01.07.2025, under Sections 4/17 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 (for short ‘POCSO Act’) and Section 351 (3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’), registered at Police

Station City Mahendergarh, District Mahendergarh.

2. The translated version of the FIR is reproduced hereunder:

“Statement of xxxx wife of Vishnu resident of Mohalla, Mahendergarh, age 16 ½ years, education 11th Pass, phone no.94660-xxxxx, 80535xxxxx. Stated that I am resident of above said address and student 12th Class in Government Girls school, Mahendergarh. We are four sisters, father is a driver and mother is housewife. In the

SWARNJIT SINGH

2026.04.02 17:24 Month of April, 2025 I went to the Saloon namely Mahi I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-38643-2025 (O&M) -2-

Beauty Saloon for the course of beauty parlor. I done the course of beauty parlor for 2 ½ months. In the month of April, 2025 owner of parlor namely Jai Shree has got done my introduction with a boy namely Rahul. We started talking to each other. On 27th April, xxxx has sent me and Rahul in the room at first floor, where Rahul has done wrong act with me and Rahul as well as xxx threatened me to kill in case I disclosed to anyone. I disclosed this to my mother and my mother bring me to police station City Mahendergarh. Stern action be taken against Rahul and xxx. Statement is recorded in the presence of legal aid counsel xxxxx. Sd/ xxxxx Legal aid

dated 01.07.2025”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been made a scapegoat in the present case by the complainant and her family members, being the relative of one Jai Shree, the owner of the beauty parlour, with whom the complainant had prior disputes. It is submitted that there is a delay of about 3 months in the registration of the FIR. Moreover, there is no material on record to implicate the petitioner in the present case. It is submitted that the petitioner is ready to join investigation and cooperate. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that there are specific and serious allegations against the petitioner. He states that

the petitioner was actively involved in the commission of the offence.

5. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner/accused is a police personnel and has misused his position of authority and violated the dignity of the prosecutrix, who was merely 16 years old at the time of the alleged incident. It is submitted that the prosecutrix, in her statement

SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.04.02 17:24 I attest to the accuracrye acndorded under Section 183 of BNSS, categorically stated that she was integrity of this document

CRM-M-38643-2025 (O&M) -3-

undergoing training at the salon owned by one Jai Shree, who introduced her to the present petitioner and disclosed that he was a Constable in the Delhi Police. Subsequently, the said Jai Shree, in connivance with the present petitioner, called the prosecutrix to her house, where the petitioner then committed rape upon her and thereafter threatened with dire consequences. She further stated that after the alleged occurrence, she stopped going to the parlour, but was still being threatened. It was due to fear for her life that the prosecutrix did not immediately disclose about the alleged occurrence to the concerned a