CRM-M-52924 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT (104) Abrar State of Haryana. CORAM: Present: ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral) 1. anticipatory bail in FIR No. 74 dated 20.05.2025, registered under Sections 351(3), 64(1), and 77 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 6 and 12 of the POCSO Act, at Police Station Punhana, District Nuh. 2. contents of the FIR, submits that there is an inordinate delay of 20 days in lodging the FIR. He further submits that the FIR itself records that the complainants were attempting to compromise the matter, which, according to counsel for the petitioner the petitioner. It is further submitted that the medical report of the victim clearly states that there was no prior record of assault. argues that the entire effort is aimed entangling him in litigation. the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra and Anr., (2006) 10 SCC 92 52924-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Versus State of Haryana. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN **** Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Paras Talwar, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. Liaqat Ali, Advocat for the complainant. ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed seeking the grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 74 dated 20.05.2025, registered under Sections 351(3), 64(1), and 77 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 6 and 12 of the POCSO Act, at Police Station Punhana, District Nuh. Learned counsel for the petitioner contents of the FIR, submits that there is an inordinate delay of 20 days in lodging the FIR. He further submits that the FIR itself records that the complainants were attempting to compromise the matter, which, according for the petitioner, was in fact an attempt to extort money from the petitioner. It is further submitted that the medical report of the victim clearly states that there was no prior record of assault. argues that the entire effort is aimed at maligning the petitioner and entangling him in litigation. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra and Anr., (2006) 10 SCC 92 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-52924-2025 Date of Decision:- 23.09.2025 ……Petitioner ……Respondent ALOK JAIN Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Paras Talwar, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. Liaqat Ali, Advocat for the complainant. The present petition has been filed seeking the grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 74 dated 20.05.2025, registered under Sections 351(3), 64(1), and 77 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 6 and 12 of the POCSO Act, at Police Station Punhana, District Nuh. Learned counsel for the petitioner, after referring to the contents of the FIR, submits that there is an inordinate delay of 20 days in lodging the FIR. He further submits that the FIR itself records that the complainants were attempting to compromise the matter, which, according , was in fact an attempt to extort money from the petitioner. It is further submitted that the medical report of the victim clearly states that there was no prior record of assault. Learned counsel at maligning the petitioner and Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe v. State of Maharashtra and Anr., (2006) 10 SCC 92, wherein it was held: - 23.09.2025 ……Petitioner ……Respondent The present petition has been filed seeking the grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 74 dated 20.05.2025, registered under Sections 351(3), 64(1), and 77 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 6 , after referring to the contents of the FIR, submits that there is an inordinate delay of 20 days in lodging the FIR. He further submits that the FIR itself records that the complainants were attempting to compromise the matter, which, according , was in fact an attempt to extort money from the petitioner. It is further submitted that the medical report of the victim ounsel at maligning the petitioner and Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe v. MANJU 2025.09.25 10:52 I agree to specified portions of this document CRM-M-52924 3. recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. does not name the present petitioner. Interestingly, somebody else whereas in the FIR, the name of somebody else is stated to be It is also submitted that the date of the incident is not disclosed in the statement recorded under Se 4. complainant, submits that the matter is still at the as per the medical report, the hymen has been ruptured, and opinion of the Docto prosecutrix, which is slightly over 13 years, and argues that granting anticipatory bail submitted that the mobile phone is yet to be recovered, and according to the 52924-2025 It is true that in a rape case the accused could be convicted on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if it is capable of inspiring of confidence in the mind of the court. If the version given by the prosecutrix is unsupported by any medical evidence or the whole surrounding circumstances are highly improbable and belie the case set up by the prosecutrix, the court shall not act on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix. The courts shall be extremely careful in accepting the sole testimony of the prosecutrix wh improbable and unlikely to happen. Counsel further submits that the testimony of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. does not name the present petitioner. Interestingly, in the said testimony she has mentioned somebody else at whose residence the said in the FIR, the name of somebody else is stated to be It is also submitted that the date of the incident is not disclosed in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Per contra, learned State counsel, assisted by counsel for the complainant, submits that the matter is still at the s per the medical report, the hymen has been ruptured, and opinion of the Doctor the possibility of sexual assault cannot be ruled out. The State counsel vehemently prosecutrix, which is slightly over 13 years, and argues that granting anticipatory bail, at this stage would hamper the investigation. It is ubmitted that the mobile phone is yet to be recovered, and according to the -2- ue that in a rape case the accused could be convicted on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if it is capable of inspiring of confidence in the mind of the court. If the version given by the prosecutrix is unsupported by any medical e surrounding circumstances are highly improbable and belie the case set up by the prosecutrix, the court shall not act on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix. The courts shall be extremely careful in accepting the sole testimony of the prosecutrix when the entire case is improbable and unlikely to happen. Counsel further submits that the testimony of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. does not name the present petitioner. she has mentioned the name of said alleged incident took place, in the FIR, the name of somebody else is stated to be mentioned. It is also submitted that the date of the incident is not disclosed in the ction 164 Cr.P.C. , learned State counsel, assisted by counsel for the complainant, submits that the matter is still at the stage of investigation and s per the medical report, the hymen has been ruptured, and as per the the possibility of sexual assault cannot be ruled out. vehemently relies on the age of the prosecutrix, which is slightly over 13 years, and argues that granting at this stage would hamper the investigation. It is ubmitted that the mobile phone is yet to be recovered, and according to the - ue that in a rape case the accused could be convicted on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if it is capable of inspiring of confidence in the mind of the court. If the version given by the prosecutrix is unsupported by any medical e surrounding circumstances are highly improbable and belie the case set up by the prosecutrix, the court shall not act on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix. The courts shall be extremely careful in accepting the sole en the entire case is Counsel further submits that the testimony of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. does not name the present petitioner. name of alleged incident took place, . It is also submitted that the date of the incident is not disclosed in the , learned State counsel, assisted by counsel for the and as per the relies on the age of the prosecutrix, which is slightly over 13 years, and argues that granting at this stage would hamper the investigation. It is ubmitted that the mobile phone is yet to be recovered, and according to the MANJU 2025.09.25 10:52 I agree to specified portions of this document CRM-M-52924 FIR, the prosecutrix was allegedly blackmailed with obscene videos purportedly in the possession of the petitioner. 5. 6. years and mere recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. does not entitle the petitioner to the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail. petitioner is recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein complainant recorded that the arguments raised by the learned counsel for petitioner does not found any truth. Furthermore, the judgment relied upon by the petitioner pertains to an appeal against conviction and the be applicable at the stage of trial. 7. the petitioner how the petitioner under Section of the offence grant of anticipatory bail. 8. September 23, 2025 manju Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether Reportable: 52924-2025 FIR, the prosecutrix was allegedly blackmailed with obscene videos purportedly in the possession of the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Considering the age of the prosecutri merely non-mentioning of the date recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. does not entitle the petitioner to the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail. petitioner is very explicitly mentioned in the FIR as well as in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein complainant recorded that it was petitioner who sexually exploit the victim, therefore, the arguments raised by the learned counsel for petitioner does not found any truth. Furthermore, the judgment relied upon by the petitioner pertains to an appeal against conviction and the parameters be applicable at the stage of trial. At this stage, considering serious allegations the petitioner coupled with the fact that the investigation is not clear as to the petitioner is connected with the other Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement recorded of the offence committed, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. September 23, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether Reportable:- Yes/No -3- FIR, the prosecutrix was allegedly blackmailed with obscene videos purportedly in the possession of the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. ering the age of the prosecutrix, which is just over 13 mentioning of the date of incident in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. does not entitle the petitioner to the Moreover the name of the explicitly mentioned in the FIR as well as in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein complainant very specifically petitioner who sexually exploit the victim, therefore, the arguments raised by the learned counsel for petitioner does not found any truth. Furthermore, the judgment relied upon by the petitioner pertains parameters laid down therein would serious allegations levelled against the investigation is not clear as to other person named in the FIR and recorded. Taking in view the gravity , this Court does not find it to be a fit case for Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. (ALOK JAIN) JUDGE - FIR, the prosecutrix was allegedly blackmailed with obscene videos x, which is just over 13 in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. does not entitle the petitioner to the the name of the explicitly mentioned in the FIR as well as in the statement very specifically petitioner who sexually exploit the victim, therefore, the arguments raised by the learned counsel for petitioner does not found any truth. Furthermore, the judgment relied upon by the petitioner pertains laid down therein would against the investigation is not clear as to in the FIR and gravity , this Court does not find it to be a fit case for MANJU 2025.09.25 10:52 I agree to specified portions of this document