Arshdeep v. State Of Punjab

-1IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-17776-2026(O&M)

Reserved on: 09.04.2026

Pronounced on: 10.04.2026 Uploaded on: 10.04.2026 ARSHDEEP

...Petitioner

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Argued by: Mr. Tanvir Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sukhbeer Singh, DAG Punjab.

**** SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL, J. (ORAL) 1.

Petitioner seeks regular bail in case arising out of FIR No. 216 dated 20.08.2025 under Sections 75, 78(2), 351(2) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Lambi District Sri Muktsar Sahib. This is the first petition for regular bail.

2.

Complainant stated that she was married with Gurmeet Singh son of Mahinder Singh and had a daughter Ashpreet Kaur, who was 06 years old. Her husband died in the year 2021 and she had 07 acres of land which had been given on lease. Arshdeep Singh son of Baggi of her village, demanded her land on lease after death of her husband, but she refused. He had been roaming around in her street but she ignored him. Then, he started passing comments, when she was passing by. Four-five months ago, she received a message from an unknown Instagram ID, which she later learnt, was of Arshdeep Singh.

-2When she did not respond, he started messaging and calling her repeatedly on Instagram. On 23.07.2025, Arshdeep Singh called her on her mobile phone and used foul language. She hung up, but he kept calling. On 24.07.2025, her uncle Hardeep Singh came to visit her. At around 3.15 PM, when she was waiting for her daughter's school van in the street, Arshdeep Singh held her wrist and asked her to have sexual intercourse. He also threatened to upload her objectionable pictures on Instagram. When she raised alarm, her uncle Hardeep Singh came and Arshdeep Singh ran away from the spot. She was quite for fear of humiliation but Arshdeep Singh did not refrain. Whenever she went out for work, he followed her and threatened to upload her objectionable pictures on social media, if she refused sexual favours.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had been falsely implicated in the case. FIR was delayed by one month. In fact, petitioner and complainant were in consensual relationship. Complainant wanted to marry him, which was objected to by her family as petitioner belonged to Scheduled Caste community. The false case was got registered by the complainant for extraneous considerations. Investigation in the case was complete and petitioner, who was in judicial custody for the last 05 months, deserved to be enlarged on regular bail.

4.

Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for bail on the ground of serious nature of allegations against the petitioner. 5.

Petitioner is in custody w.e.f. 08.10.2025. Conclusion of trial is likely to take long. Petitioner has clean antecedents with no criminal history. He has roots in the society. There is no reason to suspect that he would evade the

-3process of law. In the facts and circumstances of the case but without commenting on merits, petition is allowed. Petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail on furnishing requisite bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

(SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) April 10, 2026 JUDGE Ajay Goswami Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No