102 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.36201 of 2026 Date of decision: 08.07.2026 Poonam …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present :- Dr. Pankaj Nanhera, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anurag Mor, Advocate and Ms. Ishita Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G., Haryana for respondent No.1-State. ***** MANDEEP PANNU, J. (Oral) 1. The present is the first petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding Section 438 Cr.P.C.) seeking the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.36 dated 05.06.2026 (Annexure P-1), registered under Sections 65(1), 64(2)(m), 75(2), 316(2), 115, 123, 61 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding Sections 376(3), 376, 354-A, 406, 321, 328, 120-B and 506 IPC) and Sections 10, 14(2), 4(2) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, registered at Women Police Station, District Hisar, Haryana. 2. The present FIR has been registered on the statement of the complainant-victim (name withheld). As per the allegations levelled in the NEETU RANI 2026.07.08 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD CRM-M No.36201 of 2026 -2- complaint, the main accused, Ajay, who was an acquaintance of the complainant’s mother, used to frequently visit their house. It has been alleged that during the absence of her mother, accused Ajay repeatedly committed rape upon the complainant-victim. The complainant has further narrated that on one occasion, when her mother was admitted to the hospital, she was sent to a Child Welfare Home. Thereafter, the present petitioner, Poonam, who is the real sister of the main accused Ajay, took her custody from the Child Welfare Home and left her at the house of accused Ajay, where accused Ajay again committed rape upon her. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and no offence, as alleged, is made out against her. It is submitted that the petitioner is the real sister of the main accused, Ajay, and the only allegation attributed to her is that she took the custody of the victim from the Child Welfare Committee and left her at the house of Ajay. Learned counsel further submits that the victim herself had made a voluntary statement before the Child Welfare Committee expressing her willingness to accompany the petitioner, whereafter the competent authority handed over her custody to the petitioner in accordance with law. It is argued that there is no allegation that the petitioner was aware of or a party to the acts allegedly committed by the main accused, and, therefore, her custodial interrogation is not required. On these grounds, prayer has been made for grant of anticipatory bail. 4. Notice of motion. 5. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G., Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1-State. NEETU RANI 2026.07.08 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD CRM-M No.36201 of 2026 -3- 6. Mr. C.R. Narwal, Advocate, appears on behalf of respondent No.2 and has filed Power of Attorney, which is taken on the record. He accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2. 7. Learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel for respondent No.2, opposes the present petition and submits that serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. It is contended that after taking the custody of the victim from the competent authority, the petitioner handed over the victim to the main accused, Ajay, whereafter Ajay continuously committed rape upon the victim. It is, thus, argued that considering the gravity of the allegations and the specific role attributed to the petitioner, she does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the paper-book with their able assistance. 9. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are grave and serious in nature. As per the prosecution case, the complainant-victim is a minor girl who had been residing in a Child Welfare Home after her mother was admitted to the hospital. The custody of such a vulnerable child was entrusted to the petitioner by the competent authority after reposing confidence in her and with the legitimate expectation that the petitioner would ensure her safety, protection and welfare. However, the allegations against the petitioner are that instead of discharging the responsibility cast upon her, she took the minor victim to the house of her brother, namely Ajay, where the victim was again subjected to rape by the main accused. 10. The role attributed to the petitioner cannot be said to be merely incidental. At this stage, there are specific allegations that after NEETU RANI 2026.07.08 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD CRM-M No.36201 of 2026 -4- obtaining lawful custody of the victim from the competent authority, the petitioner facilitated her access to the main accused. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner, despite being under a duty to protect the minor, acted in a manner which enabled the main accused to continue committing rape upon the victim. Such allegations disclose not only a serious breach of the trust reposed in the petitioner by the Child Welfare Committee but also prima-facie indicate her complicity in the sequence of events leading to the repeated violation of a minor child. 11. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the victim had voluntarily expressed her willingness before the Child Welfare Committee to accompany the petitioner does not persuade this Court to grant the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail. Once the custody of the child was entrusted to the petitioner, it became her foremost obligation to ensure that the victim remained safe and protected. The prosecution case is that instead of fulfilling such obligation, the petitioner handed over the victim to the main accused, where she was allegedly subjected to rape repeatedly. 12. Keeping in view the gravity of the allegations, the specific role attributed to the petitioner, the fact that the victim is a minor and the nature of the accusations under the BNS and the POCSO Act, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for the grant of anticipatory bail. 13. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. 14. It is, however, clarified that any observation made herein is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and shall not be NEETU RANI 2026.07.08 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD CRM-M No.36201 of 2026 -5- construed as an expression on the merits of the case during the course of trial. 15. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) 08.07.2026 JUDGE neetu Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No NEETU RANI 2026.07.08 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD