IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-74152-2025(O&M)

Reserved on: 10.02.2026 Pronounced on : 12.02.2026 Uploaded on: 12.02.2026 HARPREET SINGH …Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB …Respondent Coram: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal Present: Mr. P.S. Sekhon, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Parshant, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Kunwarbir Singh, AAG Punjab.

***

SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL J.

1. Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No. 98 dated 07.10.2025 under Sections 376(1), 120-B Indian Penal Code and Section 4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Ladhowal, District Ludhiana. This is the first petition for anticipatory bail.

2. Complainant ‘A’ aged about 20 years stated that in the year 2020, when she was a student of Grade 9 and about 14 years of age, she came in contact with Harpreet Singh @ Babbi son of Jaspal Singh resident of village Aliwal, District Ludhiana, who worked in a vehicle workshop near her School. He established physical relations with her at a deserted and isolated place in front of Hambra Mandi. Thereafter, they started talking to each other daily on the phone and became close friends. Later, they decided to marry each other. Thereafter, they established physical relations several times. About 08 month ago, when she asked him to marry her, he started quarreling and refused to marry her as his father was not agreeing. A verbal altercation ensued on which he made a fake ID and circulated her obscene photographs. When she came to know, she tried to end her life. Thereafter, she moved a complaint against him, which was inquired into but a mutual compromise was reached according to which Harpreet Singh @ Babbi agreed to marry her. 07.10.2025 was the date fixed for marriage. On 02.10.2025 a formal marriage invitation was opened at the house of Kulwinder Singh son of Gulla Singh, nephew of the Sarpanch, in the presence of Sarpanch Mohan Lal and Numberdar Hardev Singh. As per compromise, Harpreet Singh @ Babbi was supposed to come with Baraat to marry her, but he did not reach. When they went to Sarpanch of the village, he told them that family of Harpreet had left on his instructions and they were free to take any legal action.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was innocent and had been falsely implicated after 06 years of the alleged incident. The prosecutrix, who was 20 years of age, lodged the FIR regarding an occurrence when she was 14 years of age. There were no specific dates or year mentioned in the FIR, which was vague. Till 2025, no complaint was made by the prosecutrix. In fact, petitioner became friendly with the prosecutrix, who was more than 18 years of age at the relevant time. On account of temperamental differences, petitioner decided not to perform marriage with her. Petitioner, who had clean antecedents was ready and willing to join investigation. In support of his arguments, he relies upon Jaspal Singh Kaural Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi and Another 2025 SCC Online SC 742.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail arguing that petitioner was evading arrest since long; his custodial interrogation was required to recover his mobile phone, from which he made obscene videos of the prosecutrix viral. Thus, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

5. Petitioner is alleged to have committed aggravated sexual assault on the prosecutrix, who was a student of 09 grade and was only 14 years of age. There are allegations of petitioner having circulated obscene photos of the prosecutrix, whose statement under Section 164 r.P.C. has been recorded. Allegations of aggravated penetrative assault on the prosecutrix are grave and serious. Her consent is of no consequence in view of her age. Delay in lodging the FIR is to be seen at the time of final decision of the case. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessitated to effect recovery of his mobile phone which is a crucial piece of