The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted anticipatory bail to an accused in a serious rape case under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, emphasizing that unexplained delay in lodging an FIR and verifiable hospitalization during the alleged offense are critical factors that undermine the prosecution’s narrative. The judgment underscores that gravity of allegation alone cannot override the procedural safeguards under Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Harjinder Singh, seeks anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 20 dated 14.02.2026 registered at Police Station Sadar Jalalabad, District Fazilka, under Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (rape and related offenses). The complaint was filed by a woman, referred to as ‘M’, who alleges that she was repeatedly raped, blackmailed, and robbed by the petitioner over a period spanning nearly a decade, beginning in 2016.
Key Facts
- The prosecutrix claims the first incident occurred on 01.08.2016, when she was allegedly drugged and raped at the petitioner’s residence after being lured under false pretenses.
- She alleges subsequent incidents of rape, threats, and extortion between 2016 and 2025, including being taken to hotels and forced to transfer money to the petitioner and his wife’s accounts.
- On 25.10.2025, during her engagement to another man, the petitioner and his family allegedly threatened to prevent her marriage.
- On 07.02.2026, at approximately 7:00 PM, the petitioner allegedly called her to his house, confined her overnight, raped her, looted ₹3,00,000 in cash and gold ornaments, and forced her to consume an intoxicant.
- The prosecutrix escaped on 08.02.2026 and reported the incident to her mother.
- A medico-legal examination confirmed her pregnancy.
- The FIR was lodged on 14.02.2026, nearly ten years after the first alleged incident.
- The petitioner claims he was the victim of a retaliatory attack on 07.02.2026 at 10:30 PM, when the prosecutrix’s brothers assaulted him with sharp weapons, looted ₹2,00,000, and inflicted three grievous injuries to his abdomen and hand.
- Hospital records confirm the petitioner was admitted to Civil Hospital, Jalalabad, at 10:30 PM on 07.02.2026, rendering him physically incapable of committing the alleged acts that evening.
- The petitioner had previously filed FIR No. 22 dated 14.02.2026 against the prosecutrix’s brothers under Sections 118(1), 115(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
- The petitioner has no prior criminal record.
- He voluntarily submitted his DNA samples for analysis.
- Two Vivo mobile phones, allegedly seized during the assault on the petitioner, have not been recovered.
Procedural History
- 07.02.2026: Alleged assault on petitioner and alleged rape of prosecutrix.
- 08.02.2026: Prosecutrix escapes and reports incident to family.
- 14.02.2026: Two FIRs registered - FIR No. 20 (against petitioner) and FIR No. 22 (against prosecutrix’s brothers).
- 15.02.2026: Petitioner applies for interim pre-arrest bail before Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Fazilka.
- 20.02.2026: Interim pre-arrest bail granted by Additional Sessions Judge.
- 05.03.2026: Application for anticipatory bail dismissed by Fast Track Special Court on grounds that mobile phones and digital evidence were not surrendered.
- 28.03.2026: Petitioner files present application before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
- 28.04.2026: Case reserved for judgment.
- 30.04.2026: Judgment pronounced.
Relief Sought
The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case arising from FIR No. 20/2026, along with directions to the investigating agency to consider his hospitalization records and clean antecedents. He also seeks protection from arbitrary arrest and custodial interrogation.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 can be denied solely on the basis of the gravity of the offense and unexplained delay in reporting, when the accused has verifiable alibi through hospitalization and clean antecedents.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel argued that the prosecutrix’s narrative is inherently improbable due to the unexplained ten-year delay in reporting, which contradicts the principle of prompt disclosure in sexual offense cases. He submitted that the petitioner was physically incapacitated on the critical date of 07.02.2026 due to grievous injuries sustained in a violent assault by the prosecutrix’s brothers, as corroborated by hospital records. He emphasized that the petitioner had no criminal history, had voluntarily cooperated with investigation by submitting DNA samples, and was ready to appear before the investigating officer. He contended that the dismissal of bail by the Special Court on the ground of non-surrender of mobile phones was legally unsustainable, as the phones were allegedly seized during an attack on the petitioner, not in his possession.
For the Respondent
The State, through the Additional Advocate General, argued that custodial interrogation was necessary to recover obscene videos and photographs allegedly stored on the petitioner’s devices. It submitted that the nature of the offense under Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 was grave and involved prolonged exploitation, making bail inappropriate. The State relied on the prosecutrix’s detailed allegations and the fact that the petitioner was known to her, suggesting opportunity and motive.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the factual matrix with particular attention to the timeline and physical impossibility of the petitioner committing the offense on 07.02.2026. It noted that the prosecutrix’s complaint, while detailed, contained no explanation for the decade-long delay in reporting, which the Court held was a serious anomaly undermining the credibility of the allegations.
"The unexplained delay of nearly ten years in reporting the alleged incidents, coupled with the petitioner’s hospitalization on the very date of the most serious allegation, raises grave doubts about the veracity of the prosecution’s narrative."
The Court further observed that the petitioner’s clean antecedents, willingness to cooperate with investigation, and prior grant of interim bail indicated that he was not a flight risk or a threat to the investigation. The Court rejected the State’s reliance on the need for custodial interrogation to recover digital evidence, noting that such recovery could be effected post-arrest and did not justify pre-arrest detention. The Court distinguished this case from those where the accused is a repeat offender or where the evidence is solely testimonial without corroborative physical or documentary support.
The Court emphasized that Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 mandates a balanced approach - the gravity of the offense must be weighed against the likelihood of abuse of process, the possibility of tampering, and the accused’s conduct. In this case, the balance tipped decisively in favor of the petitioner.
The Verdict
The petition was allowed. The petitioner shall be granted anticipatory bail in the event of arrest, subject to furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the arresting/investigating officer. He shall join the investigation as and when summoned and shall comply with all conditions under Section 438(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. All pending applications in the matter are disposed of accordingly.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Delay in Reporting Undermines Prosecution Credibility
- Practitioners must now treat unexplained delays of five years or more in sexual offense cases as a material factor favoring bail, especially where no reasonable explanation is offered.
- Courts are likely to scrutinize the timing of FIRs in cases involving long-standing relationships or prior disputes.
- The burden shifts to the prosecution to explain why the complainant waited years to report.
Hospitalization as a Viable Alibi
- Medical records establishing physical incapacity on the date of alleged offense constitute strong grounds for anticipatory bail.
- Courts will accept hospital admission records as prima facie evidence of impossibility of commission, even in serious cases.
- The absence of digital evidence cannot override verifiable physical evidence of alibi.
Custodial Interrogation Cannot Justify Pre-Arrest Detention
- The mere assertion that digital evidence may be recovered does not justify denial of anticipatory bail.
- Investigating agencies must pursue recovery through lawful means post-bail, including search warrants and forensic analysis.
- Anticipatory bail is not a denial of investigation - it is a procedural safeguard against arbitrary arrest.
