IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 12.02.2026 AJEEM AHMED @ AJJI .....PETITIONER Vs.

STATE OF HARYANA .....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEERJA K. KALSON Present:- Mr. Imtiyaz Hussain, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Atul Gaur, AAG, Haryana.

****

NEERJA K. KALSON , J .

CRM-6480-2026 This is an application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to place on record Annexures P-3 and P-4. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and Annexures P-3 and P-4 are taken on record.

CRM-M-5476-2026

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanita, 2023 seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No. 276 dated 06.10.2025, under Sections 332(b), 351(3) and 64(1) of BNS, 2023, registered at Police Station Hathin, District Palwal during the pendency of investigation (Annexure P-1).

2. As per the prosecution’s case, the prosecutrix has alleged that on 30 September 2025, while she was crossing the courtyard of her house towards the bathroom, the petitioner-her neighbour-unlawfully entered her premises by scaling the wall, gagged her, dragged her into the bathroom, and committed rape upon her. It is further alleged that he threatened to kill her and her children if she raised an alarm, and also captured her nude photographs, threatening to make them viral. Due to ongoing fear and blackmail, she disclosed the incident to her husband only after about seven days, whereafter the FIR came to be registered.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that there is a delay of approximately seven days in lodging the FIR and that the prosecutrix was assaulted by her own husband, which proves the false implication. A prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail has been made accordingly.

4. Learned State Counsel, assisted by counsel for the complainant, opposes the petition on the ground that the allegations are grave and supported by the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 183 BNSS, as well as medical evidence. It is submitted that the investigation is at a nascent stage and custodial interrogation is required for recovery of the photographs and other relevant articles.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. This Court deems 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, emphasised 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.

7. The allegations prima facie disclose commission of grave offences of rape, aggravated criminal intimidation, and blackmail. It is a well settled law that, at the stage of consideration of anticipatory bail, this Court is not expected to undertake a detailed appreciation of evidence or conduct a mini- trial, but only to examine whether a prima facie case is made out. The prosecutrix has specifically attributed overt acts to the petitioner, including unlawful trespass by scaling the wall, use of force, threat to her life and the lives of her children, and exploitation.

8. The contention regarding delay in registration of the FIR does not persuade this Court at this stage. The explanation furnished for lodging the FIR after approximately seven days cannot be said to be unnatural on her part in the given factual position. The stand taken by the accused regarding false implication on account of an alleged assault by the