CRM-M/34851/2026 of AJMER SINGH Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 21 July 2026

1. Pr Nyaya Sanhita case FIR No.8 IPC at Police S

2. FI and Section 67 Anandpur Sah Ankit Dahiya bail of Aakash Kumar submit of money by under Section that it was th transcript of th the father of th THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGAR

CR

Da

V/s b

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKR Mr. Naveen Batra, Advocate, for t Mr. Rahul Jindal, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Kuldeep Singh Saini, Advoca ** GGARWAL, J (ORAL) rayer in the present petition filed a, 2023 (for short the “BNS”) is f 87, dated 09.05.2026 registered Station Anandpur Sahib, District IR No.99 was registered on 14. 7-A of the Information Technol hib, District Rupnagar. The acc and one Aakash Kumar. Whe h Kumar was listed before the A tted an audio recording before th the complainant side with a vi 376 IPC. Under the circumsta he duty of the investigating o he alleged conversation between he applicant before the Apex Cou

AB AND HARYANA RH RM-M-34851-2026 ate of Decision: 21.07.2026

…Petitioner

…Respondents RAM AGGARWAL the petitioner. ate, for the complainant. d under Section 482 of Bharatiya for the grant of pre-arrest bail in d under Sections 384, 419, 420 t Rupnagar. 08.2023 under Section 376 IPC logy Act, 2000 at Police Station cused were two persons namely en the application for pre-arrest Apex Court, the father of Aakash he Apex Court alleging demand ew to settle the case registered ances, the Apex Court observed officer to investigate about the the uncle of the prosecutrix and urt. Accordingly, the matter was a n

C n y t h d d d e d

CRM-M-34851-2026

investigated and the instant FIR was registered against the petitioner, who is the father of the prosecutrix and one Harmanpreet Kaur, who is alleged to have impersonated as the prosecutrix while raising the demand of money for settling the case.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. He submits that the antecedents of the petitioner are clean; no recovery has to be made from him and the petitioner is willing to join investigation and abide by any condition imposed by the Court.

5. Per contra, learned counsel representing the State has opposed the said prayer stating that the allegations are extremely serious and that if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, he will try to interfere with the investigation and even influence and threaten the accused side in the case registered under Section 376 IPC.

6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

7. The allegations are serious. The petitioner, who is the father of the prosecutrix/victim and one Harmanpreet Kaur, who impersonated as the prosecutrix/victim were found to be having conversation with the father of the accused in the case registered under Section 376 IPC demanding money for settling the case. The voice samples have matched. Such instances are on the rise and blackmailing is the order of the day. Such cases, in the considered opinion of this Court, do not deserve any indulgence in the form of a pre- arrest bail.

8. That being so, the petition is found to be devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.

CRM-M-34851-2026

However, nothing stated herein above shall be construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case.

(VIKRAM AGGARWAL)

JUDGE July 21, 2026 vcgarg

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether reportable

: Yes/No