CRM-M-13673 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Rajinder @ Rajinder Singh Sandhu State of Punjab CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present: - NAMIT KUMAR, J. CRM-11842 of 2025 1. for impleading the complainant and victim as respondents No.2 and 3 and for placing on record the amended memo of parties. 2. allowed. Complainant and victim are impleaded as and 3 in the array of parties and amended memo of parties is taken on record. CRM-M-13673 of 2025 1. 482 of the Bharatiya Nag anticipatory 13673 of 2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-13673 Date of decision Rajinder @ Rajinder Singh Sandhu Versus Punjab and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Mr. Satnam Singh Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Adhiraj Singh, AAG, Punjab. NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL) 11842 of 2025 This application has been filed by for impleading the complainant and victim as respondents No.2 and 3 and for placing on record the amended memo of parties. For the reasons mentioned in the application, same is allowed. Complainant and victim are impleaded as and 3 in the array of parties and amended memo of parties is taken on 13673 of 2025 This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.16 dated 09.02.2025 registered under 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 13673 of 2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.03.2025 ......Petitioner ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR . Satnam Singh Thakur, Advocate, Mr. Adhiraj Singh, AAG, Punjab. This application has been filed by the applicant-petitioner for impleading the complainant and victim as respondents No.2 and 3 and for placing on record the amended memo of parties. For the reasons mentioned in the application, same is allowed. Complainant and victim are impleaded as respondents No.2 and 3 in the array of parties and amended memo of parties is taken on This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section rik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking 16 dated 09.02.2025 registered under RAVINDER SINGH 2025.03.25 18:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-13673 Sections 137(2), 87 Station Division No.2, District Jalandhar. 2. complainant stating therein that he was working in Community Health Centre, Basti Guzan, Jalandhar, and was having two children. He further stated that victim was his daughter whose date of birth is 28.08.2008 and was minor. She was studying 04.02.2025, he had gone to Gandhi Camp to meet his maternal grandfather and on the same date at 3.00 p.m., victim was enticed away by the petitioner on the pretext of solemnising marriage with her. He further stated tha be traced. 3. petitioner is innocent and case. He further submits that petitioner and respondent love relationship, therefore, she had gone with the petitioner with her own sweet will and petitioner never enticed her. He further submits that petitioner is not involved in any other case. He further submits that custodial interrogation of and willing to join the investigation. 4. for grant of antic petitioner is accused of 13673 of 2025 (O&M) Sections 137(2), 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Station Division No.2, District Jalandhar. Present FIR was registered on the statement of complainant/respondent No.2 – father o stating therein that he was working in Community Health Centre, Basti Guzan, Jalandhar, and was having two children. He further stated that victim was his daughter whose date of birth is 28.08.2008 and was minor. She was studying at a school near Nehru Garden. On 04.02.2025, he had gone to Gandhi Camp to meet his maternal grandfather and on the same date at 3.00 p.m., victim was enticed away by the petitioner on the pretext of solemnising marriage with her. He further stated that he had been looking for the victim but she could not Learned counsel for the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely further submits that petitioner and respondent love relationship, therefore, she had gone with the petitioner with her own sweet will and petitioner never enticed her. He further submits that petitioner is not involved in any other case. He further submits that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required and he is ready and willing to join the investigation. Per contra, learned State counsel for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner petitioner is accused of enticing a minor girl. C 2 yaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police registered on the statement of father of victim/respondent No.2 stating therein that he was working in Community Health Centre, Basti Guzan, Jalandhar, and was having two children. He further stated that victim was his daughter whose date of birth is 28.08.2008 and was at a school near Nehru Garden. On 04.02.2025, he had gone to Gandhi Camp to meet his maternal grandfather and on the same date at 3.00 p.m., victim was enticed away by the petitioner on the pretext of solemnising marriage with her. He t he had been looking for the victim but she could not Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the has been falsely implicated in the present further submits that petitioner and respondent No.3 were in love relationship, therefore, she had gone with the petitioner with her own sweet will and petitioner never enticed her. He further submits that petitioner is not involved in any other case. He further submits that the petitioner is not required and he is ready Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer ipatory bail to the petitioner on the ground that r girl. Custodial interrogation of RAVINDER SINGH 2025.03.25 18:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-13673 the petitioner is necessary, concession of anticipatory bail. 5. the record. 6. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma (2014) 2 Supreme Court Cases 171, power exercisable under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 482 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) extraordinary in character and it is to be exercised only in exceptional cases where it appears that the person may be falsely implicated or where there are reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely to ot 7. allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. interrogation of the petitioner may provide information leading to discovery of material fac order to enable the investigation to proceed without hi protect witnesses at this stage 8. dictum passed in another, 2021(4) RCR (Crl.) 598 Court of Judicature at Patna through its Registrar General and another, (2020)19 Supreme Court Cases 364 13673 of 2025 (O&M) the petitioner is necessary, therefore, he does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused As per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Co State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma (2014) 2 Supreme Court , power exercisable under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 482 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) extraordinary in character and it is to be exercised only in exceptional cases where it appears that the person may be falsely implicated or where there are reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely to otherwise misuse his/her liberty. Petitioner is accused of enticing away a minor girl. allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. interrogation of the petitioner may provide information leading to discovery of material facts. Curtailing of his order to enable the investigation to proceed without hi protect witnesses at this stage. Reliance can be placed upon the Hon’ble Supreme Court dictum passed in Prem Shankar Prasad v. The Stat another, 2021(4) RCR (Crl.) 598 and Anil Kumar Singh v. High Court of Judicature at Patna through its Registrar General and another, (2020)19 Supreme Court Cases 364 3 therefore, he does not deserve the I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused As per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma (2014) 2 Supreme Court , power exercisable under Section 438 Cr.P.C. (now Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) is somewhat extraordinary in character and it is to be exercised only in exceptional cases where it appears that the person may be falsely implicated or where there are reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of herwise misuse his/her liberty. Petitioner is accused of enticing away a minor girl. The allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may provide information leading to his freedom is necessary in order to enable the investigation to proceed without hindrance and to Reliance can be placed upon the Hon’ble Supreme Court Prem Shankar Prasad v. The State of Bihar and Anil Kumar Singh v. High Court of Judicature at Patna through its Registrar General and another, (2020)19 Supreme Court Cases 364 whereby the Hon’ble RAVINDER SINGH 2025.03.25 18:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-13673 Apex Court had denied the concession of anticipatory ba the gravity of offences and the conduct of the petitioner. 9. 10. the considered view that petitioner cannot been falsely enroped in the crime and necessary in the case and that petitioner liberty and, therefore, 11. 12. a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 21.03.2025 R.S. 13673 of 2025 (O&M) Apex Court had denied the concession of anticipatory ba the gravity of offences and the conduct of the petitioner. No other point has been argued. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that petitioner cannot been falsely enroped in the crime and his necessary in the case and that petitioner may , therefore, does not deserve concession In view of the above, the petition is dismissed. However, nothing stated hereinabove shall be construed as a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable 4 Apex Court had denied the concession of anticipatory bail in view of the gravity of offences and the conduct of the petitioner. No other point has been argued. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that petitioner cannot prima facie be said to have his custodial interrogation is may abscond and misuse his concession of anticipatory bail. the petition is dismissed. However, nothing stated hereinabove shall be construed as a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (NAMIT KUMAR) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No RAVINDER SINGH 2025.03.25 18:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document