CRM-M- IN 107 Lovejit Sin Vers State of Pun CORAM: Present: AARADHN 1. 26.10.2025 Information Kapurthala 2. noticed her Begowal, D complaint p His son S Kiranpreet informed -66589-2025 -1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGA jit Singh Versus of Punjab AM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE AA Mr. S.S. Thakur, Advocate for Mr. Kamalpreet Bawa, DAG, P **** ADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (Oral) Petitioner, who is an accus .2025, registered against him unde mation Technology Act, 2000, at P rthala, has filed the present petition fo Relevant facts as emerging fr ed hereinbelow:- Balkar Singh, son of Harbhaja al, District Kapurthala, set the cri int pointing therein that he has two on Simrandeep Singh has gone reet Kaur is pursuing Air Hostess ed by his daughter that at around 12 1- PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT DIGARH CRM-M-66589-2025 Date of Decision: 11.03.2026 …Petitioner. …Respondent. CE AARADHNA SAWHNEY. ate for the petitioner. AG, Punjab. accused in case FIR No. 84 date under Sections 66(E), 67, 67(A) o at Police Station Begowal, Distri tion for grant of anticipatory bail. ging from the documents on record b hajan Singh, resident of Ward No.1 e criminal law in motion by filing two children; a son and a daughte ne abroad, whereas his daught stess course at Kapurthala. He wa d 12 O’clock on 23.8.2025, she alon .2026 dated 7(A) of District cord be No.10, ling a ghter. ughter e was along GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.15 11:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- with her fr Subhanpur objectionab to know tha groups’ as been made hold of the With this registered Police Stat grant of pre Judge, Kap present peti 3. young boy, present cas further app months in l of petitione arise, as h contention not needed, law abiding for by the I -66589-2025 -2 er friend Lovejit Singh (present pet npur. Both of them had consensual onable photos and videos from his m w that someone had posted their nud as also on social media. On suspe ade viral by petitioner, he requeste the boy as also to initiate appro his backdrop, a formal case vide FI red u/s 66(E), 67, 67(A) of Inform Station Begowal, District Kapurthal Apprehending his arrest, peti t of pre-arrest bail. The same came to Kapurthala, vide order dated 17.11 nt petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petit g boy, with clean past antecedents, nt case. False implication of the pet er apparent from the fact that there h hs in lodging the FIR. Learned coun titioner uploading objectionable photo , as he was/still is willing to marr ntion of learned counsel that the custo eeded, for nothing is to be recovered f biding citizen, he is willing to join the y the IO. 2- t petitioner) had gone to an eatery sual sex. Petitioner also clicked the his mobile. After sometime, she cam nude photos and videos in ‘whatsap uspecting that photos and videos hav uested the police authorities to catc ppropriate proceedings against him e FIR No. 84 dated 26.10.2025, wa formation Technology Act, 2000, rthala. t, petitioner moved an application fo me to be dismissed by learned Session 11.2025. Aggrieved of which, th e petitioner contends that petitioner ents, has been falsely implicated in th he petitioner, as per learned counsel, there has been unexplained delay of counsel further contends that questio photographs on social media does n marry the victim. It is further th e custodial interrogation of petitioner ered from him, but nonetheless, being oin the investigation as and when calle tery in d their came atsapp s have catch t him. 5, was 00, at tion for essions ich, the ioner, a in the unsel, is lay of 2 question oes not ther the tioner is being a n called GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.15 11:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 4. State coun petitioner. victim, nam of victim w prestige of many times of petitione backdrop o counsel co Dismissal o 5. documents 6. the counse Supreme C application 7. The State Supreme C ought not t Supreme C Live Law ( -66589-2025 -3 Per contra, while opposing the counsel submits that serious offen ioner. FIR was registered on the basis m, namely, Balkar Singh. During the ctim was also recorded, wherein she ige of family was at stake, complaina times before initiating criminal proc ner is needed to know the intric drop of the case and documents br sel contends that no case for grant issal of the petition has been prayed fo Heard learned counsel for th ments on record. Before expressing any opinio ounsels, it would be appropriate to r eme Court, wherein the factors to be k cation for grant of anticipatory bail, ha In Nikita Jagganath Shetty @ tate of Maharashtra and another, eme Court held that “Anticipatory ba not to be granted in a routine manne It would also be appropriate to eme Court in Sumitha Pradeep Vs. aw (SC) 870, wherein it was held as “It may be true, as appearing for Respondent No been filed. It will be unfair 3- ing the request for grant of bail, learne offence has been committed by th e basis of complaint moved by father o g the course of investigation, stateme in she reiterated her stand. Since th plainant as expected must have thoug al proceedings. Custodial interrogatio intricacies of the case. In the factu nts brought on record, learned Sta grant of pre-arrest bail is made ou ayed for. for the parties and have perused th opinion on submissions raised by bo te to refer to the judgment of Hon’b be kept in mind while dealing with a ail, have been discussed. etty @ Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav v her, 2025 AIR SC 3375, the Hon’b ry bail is an exceptional remedy an nner.” riate to refer to the judgment of Hon'b Vs. Arun Kumar C.K. & Anr. 202 eld as follows:- as pointed out by learned couns t No.1, that charge-sheet has alread fair to presume on our part that th learned by the ather of atement ince the thought rogation factual d State de out. sed the by both Hon’ble with an av vs. Hon’ble y and Hon'ble . 2022 ounsel lready at the GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.15 11:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -66589-2025 -4 Investigating Officer does n custodial interrogation for the Be that as it may, e Respondent No.1 is not requir are satisfied that the High C discretionary relief of anticipa We are dealing with complainant (appellant herei praying that the anticipatory b the accused should be cancel complainant says that the H discretion while granting anti very serious crime like POCSO by the High Court granting should be quashed and set a matters, we have noticed canvassed that no custodial therefore, anticipatory bail m be a serious misconception of interrogation is made out by would be a good ground to g interrogation can be one considered along with othe application seeking anticipato in which the custodial interro required, but that does not against the accused should b should be granted anticipato thing that the court hearing should consider is the prima accused. Thereafter, the natur into along with the severity interrogation can be one of interrogation. However, even 4- s not require Respondent No.1 r the purpose of further investigation y, even assuming it a case whe quired for custodial interrogation, w gh Court ought not to have grante icipatory bail. ith a matter wherein the origin herein) has come before this Cou ory bail granted by the High Court ncelled. To put it in other words, th e High Court wrongly exercised i anticipatory bail to the accused in CSO and, therefore, the order passe ting anticipatory bail to the accuse set aside. In many anticipatory ba ced one common argument bein dial interrogation is required an il may be granted. There appears of law that if no case for custodi t by the prosecution, then that alon to grant anticipatory bail. Custodi ne of the relevant aspects to b other grounds while deciding a patory bail. There may be many cas errogation of the accused may not b not mean that the prima facie ca ld be ignored or overlooked and h ipatory bail. The first and foremo ring an anticipatory bail applicatio rima facie case put up against th ature of the offence should be looke erity of the punishment. Custodi of the grounds to decline custodi even if custodial interrogation is n .1 for ation. where on, we ranted iginal Court urt to s, the ed its d in a assed cused y bail being and, ars to todial alone todial to be g an cases not be case nd he emost cation st the looked todial todial is not GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.15 11:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 8. petitioner i Allegations (P) and dau during thes meant for p family is at such like initiating cr clicked pho he was pre lodging crim of situation or hardship pre-arrest b 9. 11.03.2026 gbs -66589-2025 -5 required or necessitated, by it anticipatory bail.” Factual backdrop of the cas ioner in the entire incident has been h ations levelled against the petitioner a nd daughter of complainant willingly g these intimate moments, photograph t for public consumption. Prestige an ly is at stake. As has been rightly subm like sensitive matters, family del ting criminal proceedings. In the insta ed photographs and made a ‘video’ fr as present with the daughter of com ing criminal proceedings pales into ins uation, petitioner has failed to make o rdship in his favour entitling him this rrest bail. The petition being devoid of a .2026 Whether Speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable 5- by itself, cannot be a ground to gra he case and the role played by th een highlighted in para 2 of this orde ioner are serious in nature. Though, h lingly maintained physical relations an ographs were clicked but these were n tige and honour of a young girl and h y submitted by learned State counsel, y deliberates over the issue, befo e instant case, it was petitioner who ha deo’ from his mobile phone, when on f complainant. Thus, delay if any nto insignificance. In the light of gravi ake out a case of exceptional depravi this extra ordinary relief of grant o id of any merit is hereby dismissed. (AARADHNA SAWHNEY) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No grant by the is order. ugh, he ions and ere not and her unsel, in before ho had only any in gravity epravity grant of NEY) GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.15 11:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document