Punjab-Haryana High Court
Xxxxxxxxxxxx vs Xxxxxxxxxxxx on 24 April, 2026
1
CRM-M-5237-2026 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
207
CRM-M-5237-2026 (O&M)
Reserved on: 21.04.2026
Pronounced on: 24.04.2026
Uploaded on: 24.04.2026
AMIT KUMAR
PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL
Argued by: Mr. Baljeet Beniwal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sukhbeer Singh, DAG Punjab.
Mr. Shivam Chaudhary, Advocate
for the complainant.
***
Shalini Singh Nagpal, J.
Petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No.122 dated 13.11.2025 under Sections 115, 351(2), 65(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (B.N.S.), 2023, Police Station Shahpurkandi, District Pathankot, Punjab. This is the first petition for regular bail.
Prosecutrix 'P' aged 25 years stated that she met the petitioner on 01.07.2023 at Kaithal. Amit Kumar s/o Vir Singh wanted to marry her and told her that he would marry her after one year. She started residing with him at Patiala, where he kept abusing and raping her. When she asked him to solemnize marriage, Amit Kumar told her that he was busy and would marry her in July, 2024. In 2024, when she asked him to perform marriage, he gave her beatings, locked her in a room and raped her forcefully. He also threatened to kill her mother and kept her hostage in Sangrur, Patiala hotels. He used to consume alcohol with her every evening, gave her beatings, threatened to kill her and raped her against her will. On 19.07.2024, when she told her that she HARPREET SINGH CHAUHAN 2026.04.24 18:57 I agree to specified portions of this document 2 CRM-M-5237-2026 (O&M) was pregnant, he threatened to kill her if she did not get an abortion. After three months, she was taken to a private hospital in Kaithal against her will for abortion and when she refused, he took her to a private hospital near Hanuman Vatika. Abortion was again refused by her. The same day, he forcefully raped her in Kaithal. Thereafter, he took her to a hospital in Panipat and kept her admitted for three days, where the doctor refused to perform an abortion. She again asked him to marry her and refused to have an abortion. A girl was born to her in Patiala on 18.03.2025. Since then, he had been assaulting her daily and and asked her to sell the girl child for ₹5,00,000/-. When she refused, he kicked, punched her and threatened to kill her and her mother if she told anyone about the forced captivity and rape. She did not disclose the matter to anyone out of fear. Accused wanted to push her into prostitution. She prayed for strict legal action.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that investigation of the case was complete. Petitioner was innocent and had been falsely involved. In fact, petitioner was married with the prosecutrix and the false case of rape on the promise to marry was foisted. Referring to Aadhar Card of the prosecutrix (Annexure P-2), it was pointed out that the prosecutrix was described as wife of the petitioner therein. All the hospital bills of the delivery were paid by the petitioner. A petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was also filed by the petitioner to take back the prosecutrix. Petitioner paid up a sum of ₹14,40,000/- to the prosecutrix and had purchased a house in her name. In this context, learned counsel refers to the sale deed on record as Annexure P-7. Petitioner also got the house of the parents of the prosecutrix renovated by spending considerable amount. Learned counsel placed on record petitioner's photographs with the prosecutrix and prayed that HARPREET SINGH CHAUHAN 2026.04.24 18:57 I agree to specified portions of this document 3 CRM-M-5237-2026 (O&M) petitioner be enlarged on regular bail considering the period of custody and the fact that investigation was complete.
Learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that Aadhar card of the prosecutrix (Anneuxre P-2) was a forged document. No marriage was solemnized by the petitioner with the prosecutrix. Petitioner had multiple affairs. There was an FIR registered against him regarding immoral trafficking. Property vide sale deed Annexure P-7 was purchased by the prosecutrix. No prosecution witness was examined and in case petitioner was enlarged on bail, he was likely to misuse the concession.
Petitioner has been booked under Section 376(3) IPC as the incident pertains to the year 2023. Prosecutrix is 25 years old, mature enough to understand the consequences of her acts with the petitioner. It is her own case that she lived with the accused at Patiala for one year. Whether the consent given by the prosecutrix to sexual intercourse with the petitioner on the promise that he would marry her on a later date can be said to be given under a misconception of fact would be moot point during the trial. Apparently, the physical relationship between the prosecutrix and petitioner was consensual. The prosecutrix has also delivered a child born out of the relationship.
Petitioner is behind bars for the last more than four months. His antecedents are clean. FIR registered against him under Section 3 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 is stated to have been finalized and ended in his acquittal on 11.12.2025. There is no reason to believe that petitioner would obstruct the process of law in case he is released on bail. His further detention would not serve any purpose. In the facts and circumstances of the case, but without commenting on merits, the petition is allowed. HARPREET SINGH CHAUHAN 2026.04.24 18:57 I agree to specified portions of this document 4 CRM-M-5237-2026 (O&M) Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of Trial Court/Duty Magistrate Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) JUDGE 24.04.2026 HS.CHAUHAN Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No HARPREET SINGH CHAUHAN 2026.04.24 18:57 I agree to specified portions of this document