AKSHAY AKSHAY KUMAR v. STATE OF PUNJAB

has been filed by petitioner, an accused in case bearing FIR No.51 dated CRM-M-25198-2026 (O&M) -2-

24.03.2026, registered against him at Police Station Division-2, Ludhiana, for the commission of offences punishable u/s 64, 351(2) of BNS (Section 69 of BNS was added and Section 64 of BNS was deleted later on).

#2. Facts necessary for disposal of this petition have been taken from para 4 of the Status Report dated 20.05.2026 filed by way of affidavit of Mr. Anil Kumar Bhanot, Assistant Commissioner of Police (Central), Ludhiana. The same is reproduced hereunder:- “4. Brief facts of the FIR:- i) The complainant in her statement stated that she is working as private Teacher and she lives alongwith her parents and younger sister in her house and that on 28.11.2024 when she alongwith her mother went to pay obeisance at a Dargah of Jinder Sarkar at EWS Colony, Tajpur, there Raj Vardhman (father of the petitioner) met her and he started conversing with her mother regarding the marriage of the complainant and thereafter sent marriage proposal of his son, namely, (present petitioner) for the Akshay @ Akshay Kumar complainant. ii) After this the parents of the complainant accepted his proposal and then after lapse of 4/5 months, her relation with the petitioner was finalized and on 29.11.2025 her engagement was performed with the petitioner as per rites and rituals. iii) Thereupon the father of the complainant after discussing with the parents of the petitioner fixed their marriage date after ten days of Holi festival and that after the lapse of 1/2 months from the engagement, the petitioner used to forcibly took her in the Hotels by stating that he will marry her only. iv) The complainant further stated in her statement that the petitioner used to take her in his house and also used to accompany the complainant in her house and whenever nobody was present there the petitioner used develop physical relations with her and that even the mother of the petitioner was aware about this. v) She further stated that the petitioner developed forcible physical relations with her before marriage on the pretext of solemnizing marriage and that days prior to Holi festival the CRM-M-25198-2026 (O&M) -3- petitioner called the complainant and stated that he will not marry her and she can do whatever she wants. vi) Lateron the complainant came to know that the petitioner had illicit relations with another girl regarding which when she talked with the petitioner's mother namely Tina Vardhman, then she stated to complainant not to talk with the petitioner on phone by stating that she will talk with him. vii) Thereafter when the victim asserted pressure upon the petitioner to solemnize marriage, then the petitioner threatened her that he will throw acid and ruin her entire life and that after this the petitioner leaked her private obscene photographs on social media. (viii) Further that the complainant Instagram ID password is with the petitioner and he leaked all her photos to her friends and that now the petitioner is extending life threats to her entire family by making phone calls at 03:00 AM and is also stalking her at the school where she is working. ix) The complainant then stated that the petitioner also intercepts her on her way and threatened to kill her and sought legal action be taken against him.” On the basis of the said complaint, a formal case vide FIR No.51 dated 24.03.2026, u/s 64, 351(2) of BNS, was registered against petitioner. During the course of investigation, statement of witnesses were recorded. Site plan of the victim’s house was prepared. Based on the information collected, Section 64 BNS was deleted and Section 69 of BNS was added. Victim was produced before the learned Magistrate for getting her statement recorded u/s 183 BNSS, wherein she reiterated her version as stated in the complaint and as narrated before the police authorities. Victim was got medico legally examined. Vaginal swabs and blood samples were converted into sealed parcels and were handed over to the Investigating Officer for sending them to the FSL. Investigations are still underway.

#3. Petitioner, who was named in the FIR and against whom specific CRM-M-25198-2026 (O&M) -4- allegations have been levelled, moved an application for grant of pre-arrest bail. The same was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ludhiana, in terms of order dated 23.04.2026. Aggrieved of which, the present petition has been filed.

#4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner, a young boy aged about 20 years with clean past antecedents, has been falsely implicated in the present case. As per the story set up by the complainant/victim, her parents had met the father of petitioner at a religious place. During conversation, both the families liked each other and marriage proposal of petitioner for the victim was sent by his father, which was accepted by victim’s family and thus, an engagement ceremony was held on 29.11.2025. It was agreed between both the families that the marriage will be solemnized 10 days after the Holi festival in

#2026. The story later concocted by the victim that petitioner insisted her to accompany him to his house and repeatedly violated her person, does not appeal to common sense, for victim never alleged that the two of them were alone at the house of petitioner. Continuing further, learned counsel contends that the sequence of events in fact did not unfold in the manner as portrayed by the complainant- party, who are greedy and mischievous persons. Immediately, after the engagement ceremony, victim started demanding money from petitioner. Initially, he continued fulfilling her demands but later when she started acceding her limits, he (P) put his foot down i.e. when, the relationship turned sour. Even otherwise, the allegations levelled by the victim that petitioner sexually violated her on various occasions derseves not be be taken note of, for there is nothing on record to suggest that at any of such occasions, she raised any alarm/cried for CRM-M-25198-2026 (O&M) -5- help etc. Further her plea that petitioner threatened her on the strength of certain objectionable photographs of hers, as also that he leaked these photographs on social media, is purely an afterthought, for there is no cogent material in support thereof. There is nothing to suggest that petitioner ever clicked those photographs or circulated them amongst family, friends of the victim etc. Towards the end, learned counsel contends that though the custodial interrogation of petitioner is not needed but being a law abiding citizen, he is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called for by the Investigating Offficer and to surrender the mobile phone handset being used by him. Prayer for allowing the petition has been prayed for.

#5. Per contra, while referring to the Status Report dated 20.05.2026 filed by way of affidavit of Mr. Anil Kumar Bhanot, Assistant Commissioner of Police (Central), Ludhiana, learned State counsel accompanied by the learned counsel for the complainant, have opposed the request for grant of pre-arrest bail on the ground that petitioner played havoc with the emotions of the young girl (victim), who somehow got taken in, in his sweet talks as he (P) had assured her that since they have been engaged, there is nothing wrong in being physically intimate. It was also assured to her that soon they are going to be married. The girl was so taken in by his (petitioner’s) charm that she started abiding by his dictates and started accompanying him frequently. It was on his insistence that she became physically intimate with him. However, in one such intimate moment, he clicked photographs and later when she (victim) requested for early marriage, he threatened to make those photographs viral and leaked some of CRM-M-25198-2026 (O&M) -6- those on social media. During the course of investigation, it also came to the notice of the police authorities that the Instagram Id and password of the victim was known to the petitioner, who misused the same and sent those photographs to her friends etc. Learned State counsel further contends that it is not the case of the prosecution that the victim was maintaining friendship with several other persons/boys of the area, who might also had an access to those photographs. She was only emotionally attached to the petitioner as that they had been engaged and were soon to get married. Though, she acted irresponsibly and became physically intimate to him. In her statement given before the police authorities, as also before the learned Magistrate, she has been quite consistent in her stand and stated that petitioner threatened her to abide by his dictates and by issuing threats, he repeatedly violated her person. When she insisted for marriage, he threatened to throw acid on her and shared photographs of her on social media account. Learned counsel for the complainant contends that Instagram Id and password of the victim was only known to the petitioner, who misused the same to log into her account and then upload these objectionable photographs. Investigation being at the nascent stage, custodial interrogation of petitioner is needed to unearth true facts as also to recover his mobile phone. In the light of seriousness and gravity of allegations levelled against petitioner, who intentionally uploaded the objectionable photographs of victim, as per learned State counsel, no case for grant of this extra ordinary relief of pre-arrest bail is made out. Dismissal of the petition was prayed for. CRM-M-25198-2026 (O&M) -7-

#6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record.

#7. Before expressing any opinion on the submissions raised by learned counsel of the parties, it would be appropriate to refer to certain 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 the Supreme Court in “P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement, ((2020) 13 SCC 791), has observed as under:- “67. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but several other purposes. Power under Section 438 Cr.P.C 1973 is an extraordinary power and the same has to be exercised sparingly. The privilege of the pre-arrest bail should be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred upon the court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation; possibility of applicant fleeing justice and other factors to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Grant of anticipatory bail to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence and hence, the court must be circumspect while exercising such power for grant of anticipatory bail. Anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of rule and it has to be granted only when the court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extraordinary remedy.” 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 CRM-M-25198-2026 (O&M) -8- 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.

#12. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar's case (supra) (Prasanta Kumar Sarkar Vs. Ashish Chatterjee and another ), a Division Bench of this Court had highlighted the factors that ought to be borne in mind while considering the anticipatory bail application and had stated that :- "9. We are of the opinion that the impugned order is clearly unsustainable. 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. 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 “Nikita Jagganath Shetty @ Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav vs. The State of Maharashtra and another” (2025 AIR SC 3375), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “Anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy and ought not to be granted in a routine manner.” CRM-M-25198-2026 (O&M) -9- It is equally well settled that in many cases though the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required but that by itself does not entitle him to concession of pre arrest bail. The Court has to consider the prima facie case against him, the nature of offence, the severity of the punishment etc.

#8. Reverting back to the case in hand, factual aspects leading to the lodging of the FIR have already been noticed in para 2 of this order. Petitioner and victim had been engaged. Though it was decided that they would get married 10 days after the Holi festival in 2026 but as per the victim, it was on the asking, insistence and repeated assurances given by petitioner that she became physically intimate with him. Petitioner betrayed her trust, clicked objectionable photographs while the two to them were intimate and when the young girl started insisting for the marriage, the relationship turned sour. It is at this juncture that petitioner showed his true colours and by misusing the Instagram Id of the victim sent her objectionable photographs to her family, friends etc. As has been rightly pointed out by the learned State counsel, it is not the case that victim was on friendly terms with the other boys of the area and had sent her objectionable photographs to them, who thus also had an access to the same and had probably uploaded the same. Thus, in view of the role played by the petitioner, who betrayed the trust of the victim and played with her emotions, as also threatened her, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case of exceptional depravity/hardship in his favour, entitling him for the grant of this extra ordinary relief of pre-arrest bail. Investigation being at nascent stage, if the relief sought for is extended to petitioner, the likelihood of him interfering with CRM-M-25198-2026 (O&M) -10- the investigation and influencing the prosecution witnesses cannot be ruled out. In the light of seriousness and gravity of allegations levelled, no case for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out. Further, the custodial interrogation of petitioner is also needed to recover his mobile phone, which as per the learned State counsel has till date not being taken into possession by the Investigating Officer. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed. (AARADHNA SAWHNEY) JUDGE

09.07.2026 Nisha Yadav Whether Speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable Yes/No Yes/No