Judgment · High Court · 2026

has been filed by petitioner, an accused in case bearing FIR No.76 dated

06.03.2026, registered against him at Police Station Sadar Ferozepur, District Ferozepur, for the commission of offences punishable u/s 96, 137(2), 61(2) of BNS.

#2. Facts necessary for disposal of this petition have been taken from para 4 of the Status report dated 30.06.2026 filed by way of affidavit of Mr. Sukhwinder Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police (City), Ferozepur, District Ferozepur. The same is reproduced hereunder:- “That brief facts of the case are that FIR (Supra), was registered on the statement of complainant/mother of victim against 1) Sandeep Singh son of Surjit Singh, 2) Surjit Singh son of Bakhtawar Singh (present petitioner), 3) Mahindro Bai, 4) Arshdeep Singh son of Balkar Singh, on the allegations that, Sandeep Singh son of Surjit Singh, co-villager, was keeping bad eye CRM-M-27518-2026 -2- upon her minor daughter Victim (Date of Birth 15.03.2009), a student of +2 standard in Government School, Gatti Rajo Ke and his father Surjit Singh has sent proposal of their marriage, but since Victim was minor thus, the complainant's family refused the proposal. On 24.02.2026, at about 6:00 AM, Victim awakened and started preparing tea. Thereafter, at about 7:30 AM, she found that her daughter is missing from home. They, kept on searching and upon enquiry from their neighbourer, she told that Sandeep Singh had enticed away minor victim on his motorcycle. On 24.02.2026, Chiman Singh s/o Kansha Singh, r/o village Bhakhra, relative of complainant has seen Surjit Singh (petitioner), father of Sandeep Singh and Mahindro, mother of Sandeep Singh on motor cycle along with victim near Truck Union. On repeated requests, Sandeep Singh and his family members failed to hand over custody of Victim daughter. Moreover, Arshdeep Sinh s/o Balkar Singh, r/o Chine Wale Jhugge, who is close friend of Sandeep Singh, has also sent message on the phone of victim that Sandeep Singh is collecting money and victim should ready to go with him.” On the basis of the said complaint, a formal case vide FIR No. No.76 dated 06.03.2026, u/s 96, 137(2), 61(2) of BNS, was registered against present petitioner and other accused. During the course of investigation, matriculation certificate of victim issued by the Punjab School Education Board was got verified, wherein her Date of Birth was mentioned as

15.03.2009. Despite best efforts made by the Investigating Agency of the State, petitioner, who is father of Sandeep Singh, could not be apprehended, rather the entire family locked the house and are absconding. To trace the whereabouts of the minor girl, letters were written to DRM, Railway Department, Ferozepur Cantt., Manager, Lead Bank, Ferozepur CRM-M-27518-2026 -3- Cantt. And Senior Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Ferozepur to find out as to whether the accused persons including the petitioner and victim had booked any railway tickets, to provide the bank account details of the accused and the transactions, if any, made by them through ATM, as also whether the victim along with accused visited the hospital for medical checkup, respectively. None of the accused in the present case have been arrested till date. Even the whereabouts of minor victim are not traceable.

#3. Apprehending his arrest, present petitioner had moved an application for grant of pre-arrest bail. The same was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ferozepur, in terms of order dated 15.04.2026. Aggrieved of which, the present petition has been filed.

#4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner, aged about 51 years with clean past antecedents, has been falsely implicated in the present case only on account of the fact that he is the father of the main accused – Sandeep Singh. Other-than that, there is no cogent material available with the prosecution to connect him with the commission of offence. The story put-forth by them (complainant party) that a neighbour had seen petitioner, his wife and the victim on a motorcycle, has been falsely concocted. Rather petitioner and his wife have been making sincere efforts to trace the whereabouts of minor victim and their son. It is further the submission of learned counsel that unexplained delay of 11 days in reporting the matter to the police authorities, suggests that facts have been manipulated and later a coloured version has been portrayed by the complainant. In the factual backdrop of the case, as mentioned hereinabove though CRM-M-27518-2026 -4- the custodial interrogation of petitioner is not needed but being a law abiding citizen, he is willing to join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Offficer. Prayer for allowing the petition has been prayed for.

#5. Per contra, while referring to the Status Report dated 30.06.2026 filed by way of affidavit of Mr. Sukhwinder Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police (City), Ferozepur, District Ferozepur, 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 complainant (mother of minor victim), who had set the criminal law in motion specifically mentioned in her complaint that son of petitioner was keeping an evil eye on the minor girl. His parents i.e. petitioner and his wife – Mahindro Bai had sent a proposal for marriage of the minor girl, the same was refused by her (C) on account of tender age of the girl. On 26.02.2026, when she woke up in the morning and did not find her daughter i.e. the minor victim at home, she (C) started looking around for the young girl, when some of the neighbour disclosed to her that they had seen the victim along with petitioner and his wife on the motorcycle traveling near the Truck Union. Complainant also disclosed that she had noticed a message on the mobile phone of her daughter i.e. victim, sent by one Arshdeep Singh (friend of Sandeep Singh) stating that final arrangements have been made by Sandeep and that she (minor victim) should run away. The reason for delay in lodging the FIR has also been disclosed by complainant in her first version. In any case, as per learned State counsel, effect of delay in lodging the FIR would be adjudicated upon by the learned trial Court, after both the parties lead their respective evidence. As of now, the investigation being at a nascent stage, whereabouts of minor victim and son of petitioner being not known, no case for grant of this extra CRM-M-27518-2026 -5- ordinary relief of pre-arrest bail is made out. Dismissal of the petition was prayed for.

#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.” 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-27518-2026 -6- It would also be appropriate to refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sumitha Pradeep Vs. Arun Kumar C.K. & Anr. (2022 Live Law (SC) 870), wherein it was held as follows:- “It may be true, as pointed out by learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1, that charge-sheet has already been filed. It will be unfair to presume on our part that the Investigating Officer does not require Respondent No.1 for custodial interrogation for the purpose of further investigation. Be that as it may, even assuming it a case where Respondent No.1 is not required for custodial interrogation, we are satisfied that the High Court ought not to have granted discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. We are dealing with a matter wherein the original complainant (appellant herein) has come before this Court praying that the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court to the accused should be cancelled. To put it in other words, the complainant says that the High Court wrongly exercised its discretion while granting anticipatory bail to the accused in a very serious crime like POCSO and, therefore, the order passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to the accused should be quashed and set aside. In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked and he should be granted anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should CRM-M-27518-2026 -7- consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline custodial interrogation. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail.”

#8. Factual aspects leading to the lodging of the FIR have already been noticed in para 2 of this order. Factum of petitioner, his wife and victim being together, as noticed by a co-villager and neighbour stands mentioned in the first version of complainant given to the police authorities. It also needs to be pointed out here that no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming as to why the co-villagers would name petitioner with whom victim was seen in the afternoon on

02.06.2026. Thus, agreeing with the submissions advanced by learned State counsel and considering the fact that whereabouts of minor victim and son of petitioner are still not known, as also that petitioner and his wife have locked their house and are absconding, the Court is of the opinion that the investigation being at a nascent stage, grant of relief sought for would hamper the investigation. Resultantly, 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 as his custodial interrogation is needed to know the whereabouts of minor victim. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed. (AARADHNA SAWHNEY) JUDGE

07.07.2026 Nisha Yadav Whether Speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable Yes/No Yes/No