Anmolak Singh Alias Anmoldeep Singh v. State Of Punjab
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH (120) CRM-M-48887-2025 Date of Decision: 19.03.2026 ANMOLAK SINGH @ ANMOLDEEP SINGH ......Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH
Present:
Mr. Navraj Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Aakanksha Gupta, AAG, Punjab.
**** KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL) 1.
The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 of BNSS has been invoked for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 72 dated 04.09.2024 under Section 69 of BNS, registered at Police Station Sudhar, District Ludhiana Rural, Punjab (Annexure P-1). 2.
The translated version of the FIR is reproduced below:- "statement stated that 1,xxxx daughter of Jagdev Singh son of Mahinder Singh Resident of Halwara Police Station sudhaar District Ludhiana Age 18 years Phone Number 98559-2xxxx stated that I am a resident of the above said address. My date of birth is 08-06-2006. I have 12 passed and I have 12th class pass from Government Senior Secondary School Halwara. In the year 2023, 1 joined IELTS Helpline at Raikot to do IELTS. On January 2024, 1 came into friendship with Anmoldeep Singh son of Pardeep resident of seloani who often used to tell me that, "You will do your IELTS and then we will solemnize marriage and will send you abroad.
On August 2024, Anmoldeep Singh came to my house, at that time there was no one in my house, then anmol said to me i want to get marry with you and who had taken me in words and made physical relations with me then we are getting closer and it became trust on him. On dated 31st August 2024 Anmol made phone call to me and stated that we should get marry and take your belongings and come out from home then I will pick up you outside from your home. On 0109-24 at 3 AM, Anmoldeep Singh came outside our house in order to pick up me, where I met him.
me at Simar hotel raikot where Anmol said to me that we will perform marriage tomorrow and then I will take you at his home. There after Anmol maid physical relations with me and We stayed at Simar Hotel Raikot till 9.00 am and their after Anmol took me in his village home Seeloni at around 9:30 a.m. where the parents of the Anmol were also present. When I said to Anmol about the solemnization of marriage today then Anmoldeep Singh started saying to me, "I can't get married to you, you should go back to your home, my purpose is was only to have physical relations with you and I made a lot of request to Anmol but he did not pay any attention on it then I came back home to village halwara. Anmol made physical relation ship on pretext of marriage now he refuse to perform the marriage action be taken against Anmol and justice provided to me. Appropriate action should be taken and justice should be given to me. I wrote a statement to you. I heard it, Deponent Sd/-xxxx."
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, aged 19 years, has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of the statement of the prosecutrix, alleging that the petitioner established physical relations with her on the false pretext of marriage and subsequently refused to marry her. It is submitted that the prosecutrix herself stated to the petitioner that she was being compelled by her parents to marry a 39-year-old man, owing to which she left her home and voluntarily remained in contact with the petitioner. Reliance in this regard is placed on the conversation between the petitioner and the prosecutrix, annexed as Annexure P-3.
It is further submitted that the father of the petitioner advised the prosecutrix telephonically to reconsider her decision and return to her family; however, the prosecutrix, while affirming that she was 18 years of age, expressed her willingness to marry the petitioner despite his lack of stable employment. It is further submitted that no cogent or reliable evidence has been placed on record to substantiate the allegations against the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner has never refused to marry the prosecutrix and is willing to do so upon attaining the age of 21 years. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has already undergone an actual custody of 09 months and has clean antecedents.
4.
Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. She states that the petitioner was actively involved in the commission of the offence. She has filed custody certificate in Court today and the same is taken on record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone an actual custody of 09 months. The learned State counsel, on instructions from official concerned, submits that in the present case, charges were framed on 25.09.2025 and out of total 15 prosecution witnesses, only one PW i.e. the victim has been examined till date. She submits that in view of the serious allegations against the petitioner, he is not entitled to the concession of regular bail. 5.
Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
6.
!"
#
$
%
!
!
"
#
&
& '& (
)
$
* +
& +
' months& ,
& -
$
$
.
/ '& 0
.
$
$
$
&
* & +
.
$
*
/
.
$
/ +
1
)
, $
& +
$
$
/
* 3
!3
#
!
" #
$
) & 1
$
/
4
4
5
56
/
$
% 78 +
$ $
& 78 +
$
9 5
$
8& 78 +
$
*
*
& 7 8 +
$
$
& 7 8 +
.
4 $
$
))& ,
%
& )& ,
/
*
):&
7 8
(KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE March 19, 2026 Ritika Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No