The Punjab and Haryana High Court reiterated that anticipatory bail is not warranted in cases with grave and specific allegations of aggravated penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act, irrespective of claimed evidence of innocence—reinforcing existing precedent and clarifying that such orders are binding within the High Court’s jurisdiction.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/42939/2025 of SUNIL KUMAR Vs STATE OF HARYANA |
| CNR | PHHC011235042025 |
| Date of Registration | 06-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | Ms. Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | Single Judge – Ms. Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal |
| Precedent Value | Binding within the jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court |
| Type of Law |
|
| Questions of Law | Whether the existence of serious and specific allegations under POCSO Act precludes grant of anticipatory bail irrespective of arguments regarding evidence of innocence. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that serious and specific allegations of aggravated penetrative sexual assault against the petitioner, as detailed in the FIR, render the case unfit for anticipatory bail. The claim of being falsely implicated and the existence of supporting CCTV evidence were not considered sufficient at the pre-arrest stage. The gravity of the offence under POCSO and related statutes was determinative. The Court expressly refrained from commenting on the merits of the evidentiary material at this stage. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner, a taxi driver, was booked in an FIR dated 17.06.2025, alleging aggravated penetrative sexual assault of a minor girl, based on a complaint by the victim’s father. The incident allegedly occurred when the minor was found naked in a house in the presence of three named accused, including the petitioner. The petitioner asserted innocence and claimed supporting CCTV evidence, which he asserted was not properly considered by the lower court. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering anticipatory bail in serious POCSO-related offences |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Dismissal of anticipatory bail petitions in cases involving grave and specific allegations under the POCSO Act, irrespective of proffered exculpatory material, is affirmed.
- The existence of purported evidence (e.g., CCTV footage) is not, by itself, ground for pre-arrest bail where offence severity is high.
- The factual gravity as reflected in FIR plays a decisive role at the stage of anticipatory bail in sexual offences against children.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court emphasized the gravity and specificity of allegations under Section 6 of the POCSO Act (aggravated penetrative sexual assault), Section 70(1), 115, 332(C) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, as contained in the FIR.
- Despite submissions regarding the petitioner’s innocence and submission of purported exculpatory CCTV footage, the Court found these issues more appropriate for trial and not for consideration at the anticipatory bail stage.
- The FIR recited specific and serious allegations: the victim, a minor, was found unclothed in the stated circumstances, with three accused, including the petitioner, present and nude, warranting refusal of pre-arrest bail.
- The Court specifically stated it would not comment on the merits of the case or the evidentiary value of the CCTV footage at this stage.
- Dismissal was based solely on the gravity and specificity of allegations.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Argued false implication.
- Claimed to be merely a taxi driver who dropped a co-accused and was uninvolved in the alleged offence.
- Produced and submitted a pen drive with CCTV footage asserting innocence, allegedly not given due consideration.
- Requested grant of anticipatory bail.
State / Complainant
- Opposed anticipatory bail on grounds of the serious and grave nature of the allegations.
- Highlighted specific accusations of aggravated penetrative sexual assault of a minor.
- Cited seriousness as making the case unfit for anticipatory bail.
Factual Background
The case arose out of FIR No. 0178 dated 17.06.2025 registered at Police Station Chandut, District Palwal. The complainant, father of the minor victim, alleged that his daughter was found missing at 1:30 AM and was later discovered unclothed in a neighbour’s house with three nude accused, including the petitioner. The petitioner claims to have only been a taxi driver, uninvolved in the asserted criminal act, and submitted CCTV footage purportedly proving his innocence. The FIR invoked Sections 70(1), 115, 332(C) of the BNS, Section 6 of POCSO Act, and Section 25 of the Arms Act.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court referred to Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (aggravated penetrative sexual assault).
- Charges also included Sections 70(1), 115, 332(C) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.
- No statutory “reading down” or constitutional provisions were invoked or interpreted; assessment was based on FIR contents and the stringent standards for bail in serious offences.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- Order allowing application for impleadment of the complainant as respondent no. 2, with amended memo of parties taken on record.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Reinforcement of the principle that gravity and specificity of allegations in grave sexual offences preclude anticipatory bail
Citations
No SCC, AIR, MANU, or neutral citation numbers available in the judgment text.