IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT 207 Tanwar Kartar @ Tanwar Kartar Singh State of Haryana and another CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL 1. FIR No. 377 dated 17.11.2025 under Sections 85, 64(2), 316(2), 3(5), 351(2) Bharatiya Rewari. This is the first petition for anticipatory bail. 2. On IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CRM- Date of decision: Kartar @ Tanwar Kartar Singh V/S Haryana and another CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Mr. L.K. Gollen, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kshitij Bharti, AAG, Haryana Mr. Sudhir Rana, Advocate for respondent No.2 **** SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL J. (Oral) Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No. 377 dated 17.11.2025 under Sections 85, 64(2), 316(2), 3(5), Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Khol, District Rewari. This is the first petition for anticipatory bail. On 27.04.2026, following order was “1. Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No. 377 dated 17.11.2025 under Sections 85, 64(2), 316(2), 3(5), 351(2) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Khol, District Rewari. first petition for anticipatory bail. 2. Complainant alleged that her marriage with Azad Singh son of Jai Singh resident of Village Gadli, District IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT -M-19093-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.05.2026 …Petitioner …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL for the petitioner. AAG, Haryana. respondent No.2. Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No. 377 dated 17.11.2025 under Sections 85, 64(2), 316(2), 3(5), Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Khol, District Rewari. This is the first petition for anticipatory bail. was passed by this Court:- 1. Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case arising 17.11.2025 under Sections 85, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Khol, District Rewari. This is the first petition for anticipatory bail. Complainant alleged that her marriage with Azad dent of Village Gadli, District KAPIL 2026.05.26 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-19093-2026 (O&M) -2- Jhunjhnu was solemnized on 01.03.2025. After marriage, she went to the matrimonial home and stayed in village Gadli for 3-4 days. Her husband Azad Singh, father-in- law Jai Singh, mother-in-law Krishna Devi and brother of her father-in-law Prakash Singh and brother-in-law Kartar Singh started pressurizing her to bring ₹10,00,000/- from her father, threatening to throw her out of the matrimonial home. When she expressed inability, they started exerting pressure. One evening, her mother- in-law administered some intoxicating substance in her food making her uncomfortable, whereafter her brother- in-law forcibly committed rape. When she told her mother-inlaw and husband, they paid no heed and threatened to kill her if she disclosed the matter to anyone. After 8-9 days of the marriage, they took her to Halol Kalol in Gujarat. Her family members gave ₹ 2,00,00/- to the accused persons in Jaipur, out of ₹1,00,000/- was given for scooty and ₹1,00,000/- for other articles. She was repeatedly harassed in connection with demands for ₹10,00,000/-, beaten up and her gold and silver jewellery was misappropriated. Legal action was prayed for. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was brother-in-law of the complainant, who had been falsely implicated on account of matrimonial discord between the complainant and her husband. The FIR was lodged after unexplained delay of about 08 months, which raised serious doubts as to genuineness of KAPIL 2026.05.26 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-19093-2026 (O&M) -3- the allegations. The FIR was an afterthought, result of failed matrimonial reconciliation. The allegation regarding rape by petitioner was not reliable as no specific date or time of the alleged incident was mentioned. There was no medico legal evidence to support the allegation. The FIR was a counter blast to a complaint dated 04.08.2025 filed by petitioner’s family against the complainant side. The petitioner, who had clean antecedents, was ready and willing to join investigation and deserved to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 4. Learned State counsel has filed status report by way of affidavit of Pawan Kumar, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Traffic, District Rewari. Prayer for anticipatory bail has been opposed on the ground that benefit of anticipatory bail was to be extended in exceptional circumstances. Considering nature of offences and gravity thereof, petitioner was not entitled to the concession. It was urged that the victim was medico legally examined and had supported her first version in the FIR in her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS. 5. The FIR does not mention any date, time or place of the alleged incident of sexual assault by the petitioner. It only alleges that one evening, complainant’s mother- in-law administered intoxicating substance in her food, after which, the petitioner forcibly raped her. In her statement dated 23.11.2025 to the police, complainant KAPIL 2026.05.26 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-19093-2026 (O&M) -4- stated that on 02.03.2025, she was alone, when her mother-in-law mixed poisonous substance in her food, made her unconscious, after which she was raped by her brother-in-law. Subsequently on 19.12.2025, complainant made another statement before the Magistrate that her brother-in-law Kartar Singh raped her on 05.03.2025 at about 5.00 PM, when there was no one at home. Although the effect of contradictory statements made by the complainant, at various stages of investigation, would be considered at the time of final decision of the case, the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that allegations of sexual assault were levelled against the petitioner/brother-in-law only to aggravate the offences and to wreck vengeance cannot be summarily brushed aside. 6. Adjourned to 25.05.2026. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on interim anticipatory bail subject to his furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer. Petitioner shall join investigation as and when called upon to do so and shall abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.” 3. Vide order dated 27.04.2026 passed by this Court, the petitioner was granted interim bail and was directed to join investigation. KAPIL 2026.05.26 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-19093-2026 (O&M) -5- 4. Learned State counsel, on instructions from Investigating Officer-ASI Akash submits that petitioner has joined investigation and is not required for any further investigation. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has opposed the bail on the ground that there were specific allegations levelled against the petitioner and the minor discrepancies in the statements were not material. 6. Petitioner has joined investigation pursuant to order of this Court dated 27.04.2026. In the circumstances of the case but without commenting on merits, the petition is allowed and order dated 27.04.2026, granting interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner, is made absolute, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 482(2) of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) 25.05.2026 JUDGE Kapil Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No KAPIL 2026.05.26 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document