Dismissed¶30

Amit Kumar v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Feb 2026CRM-M/62924/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab & Haryana High Court, CRM-M-62924-2025, decided 02.2.2026 by Kirti Singh, J.: anticipatory bail petition dismissed in POCSO matter (S.8 POCSO Act; S.75(2) BNS), FIR No. 97 dated 19.9.2025, PS Daresi, Ludhiana; petitioner is stepfather of 14-year-old prosecutrix whose S.183 BNSS, 2023 statement supported the FIR; bail refused on gravity and specificity of allegations; observations limited to bail adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Prima facie there are serious allegations against the petitioner that he, being the step father of the prosecutrix, sexually assaulted the girl child, stated to be all of 14 years of age. ¶28

Amit Kumar Vs State of Punjab — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 482 of BNSS in case FIR No. 97 dated 19.9.2025 (PS Daresi, Ludhiana) under Section 75(2) of BNS and Section 8 of the POCSO Act.

¶15

Court's answer

The general rule may be stated as bail, no jail, but a just exception may be taken where circumstances might thwart the course of justice; the antecedents of the accused, probability of fleeing, intimidating witnesses or tampering with evidence weigh heavily in anticipatory bail petitions.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

Prima facie there are serious allegations against the petitioner that he, being the step father of the prosecutrix, sexually assaulted the girl child, stated to be all of 14 years of age.

¶28

Key takeaways

The prosecutrix, in her statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, 2023, reiterated the version of the FIR and levelled specific allegations against the petitioner.ratio¶28
In view of the prima facie serious allegations, the Court was not inclined to grant the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.ratio¶29
Nothing stated in the order is a final expression of opinion on the merits; the trial Court is to proceed independently, the observations being only for adjudication of the bail petition.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail (S.482 BNSS) sought by petitioner, stepfather of a 14-year-old prosecutrix, arraigned in FIR No. 97 dated 19.9.2025, PS Daresi, Ludhiana, under S.75(2) BNS and S.8 POCSO Act. The Court found prima facie serious allegations of sexual assault of the girl child by her stepfather, noting that the prosecutrix in her statement under S.183 BNSS, 2023 had reiterated the FIR version and levelled specific allegations against the petitioner. Holding that the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail could not be granted in such circumstances, the Court dismissed the petition, clarifying that its observations were confined to the bail petition and the trial Court would proceed independently on merits. Pending miscellaneous application(s) disposed of.

¶1

CRM-M-62924-2025 -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

(207)

¶4

CRM-M-62924-2025 Date of Decision: 02.2.2026

Amit Kumar

......Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others .....Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH

¶10

Present: Mr. Digvijay Nagpal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Ms. Aakanksha Gupta, AAG, Punjab.

¶12

Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel) for respondents No. 2 and 3.

¶13

¶14

KIRTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)

¶15

Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in case FIR No. 97 dated 19.9.2025, under Section 75(2) of BNS and Section 8 of the POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Daresi, Ludhiana, District Ludhiana.

¶16

The translated version of the FIR is reproduced below:-

¶17

“Statement of Rxxxxx wife of Amit Kumar resident of house number 543/3/1 near Amar sweet shop Main Road new Shivpuri Ludhiana now resident of house number 1315 Street number two civil line new Chander Nagar Police Station Hebowal Ludhiana aged about 37 years mobile number 76960-xxxxx stated that I am resident of above said address and I am homemaker. My 1st marriage was slomenized with Ajay Kumar son of Tarsem Lal resident of village Bhulath Kapurthala district in the year 2008. From our wedlock two girls were born elder girl Vxxxxx aged about 16 years and younger girl Yxxxxx aged about 14 years we had quarrelsome with each other and I had divorce with my first husband in August 2024 and I kept younger girl Yxxxxx with me and elder girl Vxxxxx was kept with my first husband Ajay Kumar. Then on dated 07-12-2024 my second marriage was slomenized with Amit Kumar son of late Surinder Kumar resident of house number 543/3/1 near Amar Sweet shop Main Road new Shivpuri Ludhiana he was ready to live with my daughter Yxxxxx which was born from my first marriage. Mother

¶18

Gurpreet Singh 2026.02.05 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶19

CRM-M-62924-2025

¶20

-2-

¶21

and father of my husband Amit Kumar are no More. I and my girl Yxxxxx and my husband Amit Kumar are living in his house. My daughter Yxxxxx is studying in eighth class at Sanatan Vidya Mandir Senior secondary School civil line new Chandra Nagar Ludhiana. At starting the things were going right. The on dated 0107-2025 my daughter Yxxxxx told me that when you are doing your work upon this my father (Amit Kumar) kisses me on my cheek and he touches my tummy in a bad way upon this I asked my husband Amit Kumar upon this my husband abused me and told me to go back to my maternal home. Then I returned back to my maternal house a week before. Because my husband Amit Kumar used to touch my daughter Yxxxxx in a bad manner. Legal action should be taken against him.”

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present FIR on the statement of respondent No. 3, who is the mother of the prosecutrix-respondent No. 2. It is submitted that it is the second marriage of the petitioner and the complainant. The petitioner is the step father of the prosecutrix, and there is a dispute between the petitioner and the complainant, as she used to pressurize the petitioner to transfer his property in her name. It is further submitted that the present FIR has been lodged only to put pressure upon the petitioner and extort money from him. Furthermore, the petitioner has not committed the offences as alleged in the present FIR. It is submitted that the petitioner is ready to join investigation and cooperate with the investigating agency.

¶23

Per contra , the learned State counsel as well as the learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 oppose the present petition.

¶24

It is submitted that specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioner with regard to sexual harassment of the prosecutrix, who is aged 14 years. The prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS has also supported the prosecution version. Accordingly, it is prayed that keeping in view gravity of offences, the Gurpreet Singh 2026.02.05 16:13 I attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this documentpresent petition be dismissed. Chandigarh

¶25

CRM-M-62924-2025 -3-

¶26

Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsels for the parties.

¶27

The general rule, put tersely, may be of bail, no jail; however, a just exception may be taken where there are circumstances which might thwart the course of justice. The antecedents of the accused or the probability of the accused fleeing, intimidating witnesses or tampering with the evidence, inter alia, weigh in heavy before the Court when dealing with a petition for the grant of anticipatory bail.

¶28

Prima facie , there are serious allegations against the petitioner that the petitioner, being the step father of the prosecutrix, sexually assaulted the girl child, who is stated to be all of 14 years of age. The prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, 2023 has reiterated the version of the FIR and has levelled specific allegations against the petitioner.

¶29

Under such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶30

Consequently, the present petition is dismissed.

¶31

However, nothing stated above shall be construed as a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court would proceed independently of the observations made in the present case which are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail petition.

¶32

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

¶33

(KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE

¶34

February 02, 2026 Gurpreet Singh

¶35

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶36

Gurpreet Singh 2026.02.05 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Amit Kumar v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balkar Singh Vs State of Punjab

Amandeep Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Another

Axxx Vs State of Haryana and Others

Sandeep @ Sandeep Singh Vs State of Haryana and Another

Anish Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Gaba Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs Po Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court & Anr.