Ajay Alias Ajay Singh v. State Of Haryana And Another

continued to stalk her everywhere, blackmail and exploit her by extending death threats. He forced her to resign from the school. Thereafter, she joined another school, yet, he continued to stalk her, forcing her to leave that school as well. He brought several men with him and threatened to take away her daughter and disable her husband if she did not continue the relationship and was becoming increasingly dominant. Wherever she went, he stalked her and humiliated her, restricting her movements. He made her pictures viral online and had been threatening her on which account her life was becoming difficult. She was left with no choice but to commit suicide. Further, he had given her phone number to everyone causing her to receive approximately 20-30 calls daily from new numbers, leaving her distressed.

During investigation, four days after registration of FIR, on 23.12.2025, statement of minor daughter of the complainant was recorded on the lines that Ajay followed her on bike when she was going to school, asked her to sit on the bike and tell her mother to respond to his phone call failing which he would kill her father, send pictures to her maternal uncle and upload them on internet. He made bad signs, twinkled his eyes while standing on road and followed her. Whenever her mother went to school, he followed her and wanted to give her his phone. One day, he thrashed her father. He also hit her brother. Whenever her mother went to school, his mother and grandmother used abusive words.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was behind bars for the last three months. Complainant was 32 years old married lady with two children while petitioner was 20 years of age. The version of the child in her statement under Section 183 BNSS was after thought,

3recorded after four days of registration of FIR intended to add gravity to the offence by invoking provisions of the POCSO Act. Referring to the WhatsApp texts, copies of which were placed on record, it was argued that it was the prosecutrix who had been calling the petitioner repeatedly. There was no date, time or place of the alleged incidents mentioned in the FIR. Further pre-trial incarceration of the petitioner was not warranted and petitioner deserved to be enlarged on bail.

Learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submits that in their statements under Section 183 BNSS, both complainant and the minor victim fully supported the case. Though investigation was complete, no witness was recorded in the case. Considering the nature of allegations against the petitioner, he did not deserve the concession of bail.

The FIR records that complainant was in relationship with the petitioner and had a love affair with him. Petitioner is behind bars w.e.f. 30.12.2025. He has no criminal antecedents. He is not involved in any other case. He has roots in society. Statement of the minor child of the complainant has been recorded after four days. There is no reference of harassment of the minor victim in the first report to the police. Investigation is complete. Trial to conclude is likely to take long. Truth of the allegations in the FIR can be determined only on conclusion of trial, on evidence being led. There is no ground to suspect that petitioner would obstruct the course of justice. In the facts and circumstances of the case, but without commenting on merits, 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.

All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) JUDGE 01.05.2026 reema Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

No