CRM-M-40867-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.104 CRM-M-40867-2026 Date of Decision: 27.07.2026 KULDEEP KUMAR ...Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present:- Mr. Salil Dev Singh Bali, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Dr. Gaurav Arora and Ms. Simmy Gupta, Advocates for the petitioner. ***** MANDEEP PANNU, J. (Oral) 1. This is the first petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 438 Cr.P.C.), read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C.), for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 59 dated 16.03.2024, initially registered under Section 376 IPC (corresponding to Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), which was subsequently deleted, Section 376-D IPC (corresponding to Section 70(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), which was added later on, and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, at Police Station Sahnewal, District Ludhiana, Punjab. The present petition has been filed after the petitioner was summoned as an additional accused by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court under the POCSO Act, Ludhiana, vide order dated 21.05.2026, by invoking the provisions of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. ANU 2026.07.27 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-40867-2026 2 2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that the FIR was registered on the basis of an application submitted by Mala Devi, mother of the prosecutrix, to the Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana, seeking registration of an FIR against the accused persons for repeatedly raping her minor daughter, aged about 14 years, and making her pregnant. In the said application, it was alleged that the prosecutrix had been repeatedly sexually assaulted by two brothers, namely, Mohinder Singh and Shiv Kumar, along with their two other friends. It was further alleged that for the last four to five months, the accused persons had repeatedly subjected her daughter to sexual assault as they were in possession of a nude video of the prosecutrix with accused Mohinder Singh. It was further stated that when, about two to three days prior to the application, the prosecutrix complained of nausea and stomach ache, the complainant came to know that she was pregnant by a few months. On the basis of the said application, the present FIR was registered under Section 376 IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against Mohinder Singh and Shiv Kumar, and investigation was set into motion. 3. During the course of investigation, the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., wherein she stated that Mohinder Singh and Shiv Kumar are real brothers and that she used to frequently visit their house. She further stated that in November, 2023, when she had gone to their house, Mohinder Singh offered her a glass of juice, after consuming which she became unconscious. Upon regaining consciousness, she found herself naked and alleged that Mohinder Singh, Shiv Kumar and Gaurav had established physical relations with her. She further stated that one more person had also established physical relations ANU 2026.07.27 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-40867-2026 3 with her, whose name and address were not known to her, though she stated that she could identify him if produced before her. She further alleged that all the accused persons threatened that if she disclosed the incident to anyone, they would make her video viral and kill her family members. Thereafter, supplementary report under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. was presented. During investigation, accused Gaurav was found innocent, whereas Mohinder Singh and Shiv Kumar were sent up for trial. After the prosecution evidence commenced, the prosecutrix appeared in the witness box as PW-4. While reiterating the allegations made in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she further deposed that she had subsequently come to know that the fourth accused was Kuldeep Diggan, the present petitioner. On the basis of the said deposition, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved for summoning the present petitioner, Kuldeep Diggan, along with Santosh Kumar @ Gaurav, as additional accused. The said application was allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court under the POCSO Act, Ludhiana, vide the impugned order dated 21.05.2026, whereby the present petitioner was summoned as an additional accused to face trial. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the petitioner was not named in the FIR, which was registered on the application submitted by Mala Devi, mother of the prosecutrix. In the said application, only Mohinder Singh and Shiv Kumar were specifically named, and it was merely alleged that they, along with two other friends, had repeatedly subjected the prosecutrix to sexual assault. It is, thus, contended that no allegation was specifically attributed to the present petitioner at the time of ANU 2026.07.27 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-40867-2026 4 registration of the FIR. Learned counsel has further submitted that even in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the petitioner was not named. In the said statement, the prosecutrix specifically named only Mohinder Singh, Shiv Kumar and Gaurav and stated that they had established physical relations with her. She further stated that one more person had also established physical relations with her, but she did not know his name and address, although she claimed that she could identify him if produced before her. Thus, even at that stage, the prosecutrix did not identify or name the present petitioner. It is further argued that the petitioner has been named for the first time only when the prosecutrix appeared before the learned trial Court as PW-4. In her deposition, she stated that she had subsequently come to know that the name of the fourth accused was Kuldeep, i.e. the present petitioner. However, there is nothing on record to indicate as to how or from whom she came to know the identity of the fourth accused. The prosecution case is completely silent in this regard and no material has been placed on record explaining the source of such knowledge. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has not been sent up for trial by the investigating agency and has been summoned only by invoking the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the petitioner’s case stands on a better footing than that of the accused who were named in the FIR and charge-sheeted after investigation. It is submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to appear before the learned trial Court and to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Accordingly, it is prayed that the petitioner be granted the concession of anticipatory bail. 5. Notice of motion. ANU 2026.07.27 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-40867-2026 5 6. On asking of the Court, Mr. Sahil Chowdhary, AAG, Punjab. accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. It is submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are extremely serious in nature, involving the offence of gang rape of a minor girl punishable under the provisions of the POCSO Act. It is argued that although the petitioner has been summoned by the learned trial Court by invoking the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C., the nature and gravity of the allegations against him remain the same. Learned State counsel submits that the prosecutrix has not improved or materially changed her version. Even in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she had categorically stated that apart from Mohinder Singh, Shiv Kumar and Gaurav, there was one more person who had also established physical relations with her, though she did not know his name and address at that time. Subsequently, while appearing before the learned trial Court, she stated that she had later come to know that the said fourth person was Kuldeep Kumar, the present petitioner. It is, thus, argued that there is consistency in the prosecution version and the petitioner has been specifically attributed the role of committing rape along with the other accused. In view of the grave nature of the allegations, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner does not deserve the extraordinary concession of anticipatory bail. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. 8. The petitioner seeks the concession of anticipatory bail after having been summoned as an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. It is true that the petitioner was not named in the FIR. However, a careful reading of the material placed on record shows that right from the inception ANU 2026.07.27 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-40867-2026 6 of the prosecution case, the allegation was never confined only to Mohinder Singh and Shiv Kumar. In the application submitted by Mala Devi, mother of the prosecutrix, it was specifically alleged that Mohinder Singh and Shiv Kumar, along with their two other friends, had repeatedly subjected the prosecutrix to sexual assault. Thus, according to the very first version of the prosecution, the alleged offence involved four persons, though the names of two of them were not known at that stage. 9. Similarly, in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix specifically named Mohinder Singh, Shiv Kumar and Gaurav and further categorically stated that there was one more person who had also established physical relations with her, though she did not know his name and address at that time. Thus, the allegation regarding the involvement of a fourth accused was consistently maintained even at that stage. Subsequently, while deposing before the learned trial Court, the prosecutrix stated that she had later come to know that the said fourth person was Kuldeep Kumar, the present petitioner. Therefore, merely because the petitioner was not named in the earlier versions, by itself, cannot lead to the conclusion, at this stage, that he has been falsely implicated. 10. The allegations against the petitioner are not merely that he was present along with the other accused. Rather, the specific allegation is that all the four accused persons had committed rape upon the prosecutrix. It is also not in dispute that the prosecutrix was a minor and, according to the prosecution, she became pregnant as a consequence of the sexual assault. The investigation further revealed that the DNA profile of the foetus matched with one of the accused persons, thereby lending prima facie corroboration to the prosecution case that the prosecutrix had been subjected ANU 2026.07.27 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-40867-2026 7 to sexual assault. At this stage, there appears to be no plausible reason to infer that the prosecutrix would falsely implicate the present petitioner. 11. The mere fact that the petitioner has been summoned by invoking the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C. does not, by itself, dilute the seriousness of the allegations attributed to him or entitle him to the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail. The power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is exercised only when the Court, on the basis of the evidence recorded during trial, finds that there exists strong and cogent evidence indicating the involvement of a person who was not initially sent up for trial. Therefore, the petitioner’s summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C., by itself, cannot be treated as a circumstance warranting grant of anticipatory bail. 12. Keeping in view the nature of the accusations, the specific role attributed to the petitioner, the gravity of the offence involving the alleged gang rape of a minor prosecutrix, and the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for grant of the extraordinary concession of anticipatory bail. 13. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is hereby dismissed. 14. However, it is clarified that the observations made herein are confined only to the adjudication of the present petition and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case during the course of trial. 15. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) 27.07.2026 JUDGE Anu Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No ANU 2026.07.27 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-40867-2026 8 Whether reportable : Yes/No ANU 2026.07.27 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh