Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 83944 (PNJ)

RAJ KAUR AND OTHERS v. STATE OF PUNJAB

CRM-M/40521/2025 · 2025-07-30

Alok Jain

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CRM-M-40521-2025 -:1:- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (101) CRM-M-40521-2025 Date of Decision:-30.07.2025 RAJ KAUR AND OTHERS … Petitioners Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ... Respondent -.- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN Present:- Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Japjot Singh, AAG, Punjab. **** ALOK JAIN , J . (Oral) 1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioners is for grant of anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No.78 dated 26.06.2025 registered under Sections 74, 76, 79, 115(2), 126(2), 133, 356(2), 352, 351(2), 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 at Police Station Sirhali, District Taran Taran (Annexure P-). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per FIR the incident took place on 19.06.2025, however, the FIR came to be lodged on 26.06.2025. Learned counsel further submits that the allegations levelled in the FIR are general in nature and the ingredients of Section 74 and 76 of BNS are not met. 3. Learned State counsel submits that the matter is still at the stage of investigation and there are specific allegations against the petitioners who along with other two co-accused gave slaps to the complainant and had torn GAURAV SOROT 2025.08.05 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-40521-2025 -:2:- her clothes and also put black colour on her face which demonstrates that they wanted to outrage modesty of a woman and assaulted her with intention to distress her. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. The delay of 07 days has been explained in the FIR that the same had been caused on account of fact that some respectful persons trying to get the matter compromised, which could not take place. More so the complaint has made clear cut allegations against the petitioners and other co- accused and hence the petitioners have not been able to carve out a case to get concession of anticipatory bail. 6. In the light of above, present petition is hereby dismissed. 7. However, nothing stated above shall be construed as a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case. ( ALOK JAIN ) 30.07.2025 JUDGE Gaurav Sorot Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No Whether reportable? Yes / No GAURAV SOROT 2025.08.05 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document