State of Haryana v. Mr. Aditya Pal Singla, AAG, Haryana

Judgment

#1. Petitioner, an accused in case bearing FIR No.345 dated

31.05.2024 registered against him at Police Station Adarsh Nagar, Ballabgarh for the commission of offences punishable u/s 365,504,34 IPC and Sections 4,6 & 8 of POCSO Act, 2012, has prayed for grant of pre-arrest bail.

#2. Facts necessary for disposal of this petition have been taken from para 3 of the Status report dated 18.05.2026 filed by way of affidavit of Ashok Kumar, HPS, ACP, Tigaon, District Faridabad. The same are reproduced as under:- “That Brief facts of the case are that on 31.05.2024, the complainant “KH” (named withheld to protect the identity) came present in the police station and submitted a written complaint. The fact of the complaint are as follows: To, The SHO Police Station Adarsh Nagar, Ballabgarh, Faridabad. Subject: Application for the registration of a case and initiation of legal proceedings against: 1. Sagar (Mobile No. 7060061096); 2. Sagar's Mother, 3. Harinder (of the Medical Store) and 3-4 other friends of Sagar (whose names are unknown, though my daughter can identify them upon seeing them) CRM-M-24820-2026 2 regarding a complaint concerning the commission of wrongful acts against my minor daughter, her abduction, and threats to her life, carried out by the aforementioned individuals under the threat of making her photographs viral. Sir, it is most humbly submitted that

I, 'KH', son of Shri 'RA', originally a resident of Village Prithla and currently residing in Adarsh Nagar, Ballabhgarh, Faridabad, am the complainant. I have three children. I am employed in the private sector. On 30.05.2024, I had gone to work at around 8:30 PM, I received a phone call from my wife informing me that our younger daughter, "ME', had been missing since 7:00 PM. She informed me that she had searched the immediate vicinity, but our daughter could not be found. Subsequently, I returned home and attempted to search for her myself. After failing to locate my daughter, I proceeded to the Adarsh Nagar Police Station. I filed a complaint regarding the disappearance of my daughter in which I stated that a boy named Sagar had lured her away. Today, on May 31, 2024, at approximately 11:00 AM, I received a call on my mobile number (8368999392) from an unknown boy calling from mobile number

7240892428. He informed me that my daughter was in Palwal and advised me to go to the Palwal Bus Stand to look for her. When I returned from Palwal, he told me to come to the Ballabgarh Bus Stand, stating that my daughter had been found at Jajru Mod and that they were bringing her to the Ballabgarh Bus Stand. When I arrived there, I saw a CNG auto-rickshaw occupied by three boys, and dropped my daughter from it and threatened my daughter, warning her that if she revealed anything about them to the police or our family, they would kill her and her entire family. Once my daughter had come close to me, they took a photograph of us and fled the scene. When I brought my daughter home, she was extremely frightened, and there were marks visible on her neck. My daughter then told me that a boy named Sagar who owns a shop in our neighborhood had been pressuring her to enter into a relationship with him for the past month and a half. My daughter told me that one day, as she was returning home from school, Sagar grabbed her hand and dragged her inside his shop. He forcibly subjected her to obscene acts, sexually assaulted her, and used his mobile phone to take compromising photographs of her. Using these photos threatening her, Sagar began pressuring my daughter, to CRM-M-24820-2026 3 communicate with him, due to this pressure, she began talking to him. Because she was under his duress, she did not reveal any of this to us at home. My daughter further revealed that whenever she refused to speak with Sagar, his mother would pressure her, threatening that if she did not talk to her son, Sagar would commit suicide, and I will send you father to jail. Sagar also coerced my daughter into accepting a mobile phone, which he used to send her text messages containing death threats. Yesterday, on May 30, 2024, Sagar called my daughter, 'ME', to a medical store around 7:00 PM. There, a boy named Harinder facilitated a conversation between my daughter and Sagar, during which Sagar instructed her to meet him at the Vegetable Market in Ballabhgarh, out of fear, my daughter went there. Upon arriving, she encountered three of Sagar's friends, they put her on the phone with Sagar and immediately broke the SIM card the moment the conversation ended. Sagar then instructed my daughter to simply follow whatever his friends told her to do. Sagar's friends kept my daughter seated in an auto-rickshaw and drove her around throughout the entire night, during this time, all of them engaged in obscene acts with her. In the morning, they took my daughter to Jajru Mod, where three other friends of Sagar were already waiting with an auto-rickshaw. My daughter was seated in that auto and those individuals brought her to me, dropping her off at the Ballabgarh Bus Stand. When I asked my daughter about those boys, she stated that she did not know their names but would be able to identify them if they were to appear before her. Therefore, I humbly request that the strictest possible legal action be taken against the culprits, and that my daughter and my family members be provided protection against the accused individuals. I would be deeply grateful for your assistance.” Based on the aforesaid allegations, aforesaid FIR registered. During the course of investigation, statement of witnesses were recorded. On 31.05.2024, statement of the victim i.e daughter of the complainant was recorded. She was counselled before the CWC and was got medico-legally examined from Doctor in B.K Hospital, Faridabad. On 03.06.2024, victim was produced before the learned Illaqa CRM-M-24820-2026 4 Magistrate where her statement under Section 183 of BNSS was recorded wherein she highlighted the role played by the present petitioner, who used to harass her, on one occasion had grabbed her hand, forcibly pushed her into his shop and thereafter sexually assaulted her. He also took her objectionable photographs and on the strength of the same, started blackmailing her that he would make these photographs ‘viral’. Victim further alleged that mother of the present petitioner was also hand in gloves with him. On 30.05.2024 after receiving a message from him, she reached the Medical Store at about 07.00 pm without telling anyone of her family members. From there, she was forcibly taken by three friends of the petitioner in an Auto. They violated her person the whole night and later took her to a man, who dropped her to Bus Stand. On the basis of said statement, Section 6 of POCSO Act was added. She was again medico-legally examined. During investigation, UPT and USG tests were conducted. UPT was found negative and USG was found normal. Parcel handed over by the treating Doctor were taken into possession by the I.O for sending them to RFSL, Bhondsi. The RFSL report dated 19.06.2024 states that “1. Semen could not be detected on exhibit-1 (Vaginal Swabs). 2. Blood was detected on exhibit-1 (Vaginal Swabs). During the further course of investigation, date of birth record of the victim was obtained from the School, which revealed that her date of birth was 25.05.2009, meaning thereby she was approximately 15 years of age at the time of alleged incident. Mother of the victim also produced the mobile phone of the victim allegedly given to her by the petitioner, which was taken into possession. Upon examining the call detail records, the Investigating Officer found that the victim and the petitioner had been in regular telephonic contact and had been communicating with each other CRM-M-24820-2026 5 continuously. The other two accused namely Krishan and Aman @ Kuldeep were arrested on 19.09.2024 and 21.09.2024 respectively. They were also got medically examined. On 11.10.2024, DNA samples of co-accused Krishan and Aman @ Kuldeep were sent to FSL, the report of which is still awaited. On culmination of investigation qua accused Krishan and Aman @ Kuldeep, challan was presented against them under Sections 365,506 read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 4,6 & 8 of POCSO Act. Charges have since been framed against both the accused. Out of 33 cited prosecution witnesses, six have been examined so far including the complainant and the victim. Significantly, both the complainant and the victim have not supported the case of the prosecution during their examination. The mother of the present petitioner, who was granted the concession of interim bail by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Faridabad, joined the investigation pursuant thereto. Thus, it is evident that out of 04 accused, 03 have been arrested, out of whom two accused namely Krishan and Aman @ Kuldeep are in custody whereas the mother of the petitioner is on anticipatory bail. The present petitioner alone continues to evade arrest and is yet to be apprehended.

#3. Apprehending his arrest, petitioner moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Faridabad. The same came to be dismissed vide order dated 04.02.2026. Aggrieved of which, the present petition has been filed. CRM-M-24820-2026 6

#4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner, a young boy aged about 29 years, has been falsely implicated in the present case. Two fold submissions have been advanced by him. Firstly he submits that a bare perusal of the FIR would reveal that the allegations levelled therein are wholly concocted and a mere figment of imagination. It is further contended that unexplained delay of one day in lodging the FIR further raises a serious doubt on the genuineness of the prosecution case. Learned counsel contends that during the medico-legal examination, no injury was noticed by the Doctor on the person of the victim, which further belies the allegation that she was subjected to sexual assault by the present petitioner (who is yet to be arrested) along with his two associates namely Krishan and Aman @ Kuldeep. The second leg of submission raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the falsity of the case set up against the petitioner is further borne out from the fact that neither the victim nor the complainant while appearing in the witness box as PW1 and PW2 respectively supported the case of the prosecution. Both of them resiled from their initial statements given to the police Authorities. The victim in her deposition categorically stated that no one had ever physically assaulted her or violated her person. According to learned counsel, testimony of victim and her father demolishes the case of prosecution and conclusively establish that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case only with a view to harass him and to extract illegal monetary benefits. Thus, on the basis of aforesaid submissions, learned counsel contends that in the factual scenario of the case as mentioned hereinabove, the custodial interrogation of petitioner is wholly unwarranted but nonetheless being a law abiding citizen, he is willing to join the investigation CRM-M-24820-2026 7 as and when called for by the IO. It is submitted that the petitioner, who has clean past antecedents, is permanent resident of Village Keelpur, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh and there is no apprehension of him absconding/fleeing from the process of justice or tampering with the witnesses etc., thus prayer for taking a lenient view in his favour has been made. Primarily on these grounds, it has been prayed to extend the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

#5. Per contra, while opposing the request for grant of pre-arrest bail, learned State counsel submits that the conduct of the petitioner who remained absconding for almost 2 years demonstrates a deliberate disregard for the due process of law. Simply because the victim and her father have not supported the case of prosecution during the trial qua two accused namely Krishan and Aman @ Kuldeep, who are facing the trial, cannot be a ground in itself for granting the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who had been specifically named by the victim in her statement given to the police Authorities as also in her statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS before the learned Magistrate. He submits that even her father in the initial version given to the police Authorities had specifically named the petitioner and had expressed suspicion that the petitioner had probably lured the young minor girl from the lawful custody of her guardians. Dismissal of the petition has been prayed for by further submitting that if allowed the relief sought for, the same would tantamount to sending wrong signal to society and giving premium to the absconders who have been evading the process of law.

#6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the documents on record. CRM-M-24820-2026 8

#7. Before expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to refer to certain relevant judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein the factors to be kept in mind while dealing with an application for grant of anticipatory bail, have been discussed. Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia V. State of Punjab”, ((1980) 2 SCC 5) held as under:-:- “29. In Gurcharan Sing v. State (Delhi Admn.) (1978) 1 SCC 118 it was observed by Goswami, J., who spoke for the Court, that "there cannot be an inexorable formula in the matter of granting bail. The facts and circumstances of each case will govern the exercise of judicial discretion in granting or cancelling bail".

#30. In American Jurisprudence (2d, Vol. 8, page 806, para 39) it is stated : "Where the granting of bail lies within the discretion of the court, the granting or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circimstances of each particular case. Since the object of the detention or imprisonment of the accused is to secure his appearance and submission to the jurisdiction and the judgment of the court, the primary inquiry is whether a recognizance or bond would effect that end.” It is thus clear that the question whether to grant bail or not depends for its answer upon a variety of circumstances, the cumulative effect of which must enter into the judicial verdict. Any one single circumstance cannot be treated as of universal validity or as necessarily justifying the grant or refusal of bail.

#31. In regard to anticipatory bail if the proposed accusation appears to stem not from motives of furthering the ends of justice but from some ulterior motive, the object being to injure and humiliate the applicant by having him arrested, a direction for the release of the applicant on bail in the event of his arrest would generally be made. On the other hand, if it appears likely, considering the antecedents of the applicant, that taking CRM-M-24820-2026 9 advantage of the order of anticipatory bail he will flee from justice, such an order would not be made. But the converse of these propositions is not necessarily true. That is to say, it cannot be laid down as an inexorable rule that anticipatory bail cannot be granted unless the proposed accusation appears to be actuated by mala fides; and equally, that anticipatory bail must be granted if there is no fear that the applicant will abscond. There are several other considerations, too numerous to enumerate, the combined effect of which must weigh with the court while granting or rejecting anticipatory bail. The nature and seriousness of the proposed charges, the context of the events likely to lead to the making of the charges, a reasonable possibility of the applicant's presence not being secured at the trial, a reasonable apprehension that witnesses will be tampered with and "the larger interests of the public or the State" are some of the considerations which the court has to keep in mind while deciding an application for anticipatory bail. The relevance of these considerations was pointed out in State v. Captain Jagjit Singh, (1962) 3 SCR 622 which, though, was a case under the old Section 498 which corresponds to the present Section 439 of the Code. It is of paramount consideration to remember that the freedom of the individual is as necessary for the survival of the society as it is for the egoistic purposes of the individual. A person seeking anticipatory bail is still a free man entitled to the presumption of innocence. He is willing to submit to restraints on his freedom, by the acceptance of conditions which the court may think fit to impose, in consideration of the assurance that if arrested, he shall be enlarged on bail.” Further, in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee and another reported in (2010) 14 SCC 496, the principles governing the grant of anticipatory bail were summarized hereinbelow:- "9.[…] It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. CRM-M-24820-2026 10 However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii)severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv)danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.” In the case of Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:- “92.1. Consistent with the judgment in Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others v. State of Punjab, when a person complains of apprehension of arrest and approaches for order, the application should be based on concrete facts (and not vague or general allegations) relatable to one or other specific offence. The application seeking anticipatory bail should contain bare essential facts relating to the offence, and why the applicant reasonably apprehends arrest, as well as his side of the story. These are essential for the court which should consider his application, to evaluate the threat or apprehension, its gravity or seriousness and the appropriateness of any condition that may have to be imposed. It is not essential that an application should be moved only after an FIR is filed; it can be moved earlier, so long as the facts are clear and there is reasonable basis for apprehending arrest.

92.3. Nothing in Section 438 Cr. PC, compels or obliges courts to impose conditions limiting relief in terms of time, or upon CRM-M-24820-2026 11 filing of FIR, or recording of statement of any witness, by the police, during investigation or inquiry, etc. While considering an application (for grant of anticipatory bail) the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence (including intimidating witnesses), likelihood of fleeing justice (such as leaving the country), etc. The courts would be justified – and ought to impose conditions spelt out in Section 437 (3), Cr. PC [by virtue of Section 438 (2)]. The need to impose other restrictive conditions, would have to be judged on a case by case basis, and depending upon the materials produced by the state or the investigating agency. Such special or other restrictive conditions may be imposed if the case or cases warrant, but should not be imposed in a routine manner, in all cases. Likewise, conditions which limit the grant of anticipatory bail may be granted, if they are required in the facts of any case or cases; however, such limiting conditions may not be invariably imposed.

92.4. Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion; equally whether and if so, what kind of special conditions are to be imposed (or not imposed) are dependent on facts of the case, and subject to the discretion of the court.

92.6. An order of anticipatory bail should not be “blanket” in the sense that it should not enable the accused to commit further offences and claim relief of indefinite protection from arrest. It should be confined to the offence or incident, for which apprehension of arrest is sought, in relation to a specific incident. It cannot operate in respect of a future incident that involves commission of an offence.

92.9. It is open to the police or the investigating agency to move CRM-M-24820-2026 12 the court concerned, which grants anticipatory bail, for a direction under Section 439 (2) to arrest the accused, in the event of violation of any term, such as absconding, non cooperating during investigation, evasion, intimidation or inducement to witnesses with a view to influence outcome of the investigation or trial, etc.” Hon’ble the Supreme Court while deciding the case titled as “Ms. X Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another”, (2023 SCC Online SC 279) held as under:- “11.1. We propose to take a quick look at the considerations that ought to govern grant of anticipatory bail. There are a line of decisions of this court that have underscored the fact that while deciding an application for bail, the court ought to refrain from undertaking a detailed analysis of the evidence, the focus being on the prima facie issues including consideration of some reasonable grounds that would go to show if the accused has committed the offence or those facts that would reflect on the seriousness of the offence. The self-imposed restraint on delving deep into the analysis of the evidence at that stage is for valid reasons, namely, to prevent any prejudice to the case set up by the prosecution or the defence likely to be taken by the accused and to keep all aspects of the matter open till the trial is concluded.

#8. Keeping in view the above settled proposition of law in mind, let us revert back to the facts of the case in hand, which have already been summarized in para 2 of the order. Father of the victim i.e present complainant in his first version given to the police Authorities specifically named the petitioner. It was on the basis of said statement that Criminal proceedings were set into motion on 31.05.2024. Petitioner was specifically named by the Victim Girl in her statement given to the police authorities, role played by him also highlighted by her. She reiterated her stand in her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Since lodging of the FIR, the petitioner has been evading arrest and has been absconding. Best efforts made by the Investigating Agency to apprehend him have not yielded any positive result. CRM-M-24820-2026 13 We need to remind ourselves that the petitioner is involved in serious and grave offence of rape. Submissions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that since neither the victim nor her father i.e complainant have supported the case of prosecution against co-accused namely Krishan and Aman @ Kuldeep, who are facing the trial, present petitioner be dealt with sympathetically, has not found favour with this Court, for the simple reason that aforesaid two accused were apprehended and are facing trial. They did not evade the arrest. Present petitioner stands on an altogether different footing. He neither surrendered before the Police Authorities nor he has been apprehended so far despite sustained efforts made by the Investigating Agency. Consequently, present petitioner is not similarly situated like the co-accused and thus he cannot claim parity with them, who are facing trial. At this stage, it would also be appropriate to refer to judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein case titled as Vipan Kumar Dhir vs. State of Punjab and another, (2021) 15 SCC 518, it was held as under:- “14. Even if there was any procedural irregularity in declaring the respondent-accused as an absconder, that by itself was not a justifiable ground to grant prearrest bail in a case of grave offence save where the High Court on perusal of case diary and other material on record is, prima facie, satisfied that it is a case of false or over exaggerated accusation. Such being not the case here, the High Court went on a wrong premise in granting anticipatory bail to the respondent-accused.” It would be apposite to refer to judgment of Kerala High Court wherein case titled as Moosa vs. Sub Inspector of Police, reported in 2005 SCC Online Ker 605, it was held as under:- “53. […] In the light of the above discussions, we may summarise the legal position as follows: (v) In a trial against the co-accused the prosecution is not CRM-M-24820-2026 14 called upon, nor is it expected to adduce evidence against the absconding co-accused. In such trial the prosecution cannot be held to have the opportunity or obligation to adduce all evidence against the absconding co-accused. The fact that the testimony of a witness was not accepted or acted upon in the trial against the co-accused is no reason to assume that he shall not lender incriminating evidence or that his evidence will not be accepted in such later trial. (viii) While considering the prayer for invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction to serve the ends of justice, it is perfectly permissible for the court to consider the bona fides the cleanliness of the hands of the seeker. If he is a fugitive from justice having absconded or jumped bail without sufficient reason or having waited for manipulation of hostility of witnesses, such improper conduct would certainly be a justifiable reason for the court to refuse to invoke its powers under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (ix) The fact that the co-accused have secured acquittal in the trial against them in the absence of absconding co-accused cannot by itself be reckoned as a relevant circumstance while considering invocation of the powers under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. [...]" Thus, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, petitioner has failed to make out a case of exceptional depravity/hardship in his favour, entitling his for the grant of this extra ordinary relief of pre-arrest bail.

13.07.2026 The petition being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. (AARADHNA SAWHNEY) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes / No Yes / No