Rubal vs State of Punjab and anr

The present is the first petition under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 438 Cr.P.C.), seeking the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 0153 dated 30.07.2026, registered under Sections 64 and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 376 and 34 IPC, 1860) and Sections 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, at Police Station City Fazilka, District Fazilka.

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the prosecutrix, a minor girl, stated that she was residing with her family at Fazilka and was studying in 12th standard. Her date of birth was 02.11.2008. Accused Rubal, wife of Bablu @ Lucky, was residing in the same locality and was known to the prosecutrix. Rubal introduced the prosecutrix to her relative, accused Praveen Vij, who thereafter started talking to the prosecutrix over the telephone. On one or two occasions, Rubal called the prosecutrix to her house, where, according to the prosecutrix, Rubal lured her into her trap. On 07.06.2026, when the prosecutrix was alone at home, Rubal called her and asked her to bring gold and cash from her house. Acting upon Rubal’s instructions, the prosecutrix took approximately 2½ tolas of her mother’s gold ornaments and ₹1,300 in cash to Rubal’s house. Rubal told her to keep the said belongings at her house, stating that she would return them. Thereafter, Rubal informed the prosecutrix that Praveen Vij had already gone to Ludhiana and asked her to go there. When the prosecutrix stated that she would inform her mother before going to Ludhiana, Rubal threatened her mother and family with harm if she did not go to meet Praveen Vij. Being frightened, the prosecutrix went alone to the Ludhiana bus stand, where Praveen Vij met her and took her to a house situated in a lane near Gillz Garden Resort, Ludhiana, which she stated she could identify. At the said house, Praveen Vij told the prosecutrix that she should live with him and that both of them would get married. When she refused, he established physical relations with her against her will and without her consent. She further stated that even prior thereto, Praveen Vij had repeatedly visited Rubal’s house and established physical relations with her and had asked her not to disclose the matter to anyone. The prosecutrix subsequently managed to escape from the said house on 08.06.2026 and reached the Ludhiana bus stand, from where she contacted her mother. Her mother thereafter brought her back to Fazilka. Initially, owing to fear and apprehension, the prosecutrix did not disclose the incident to her mother. Subsequently, after a few days, when her mother noticed her condition and conducted a pregnancy test, which was found positive, the prosecutrix narrated the entire incident to her mother. On 29.07.2026, she was admitted to Civil Hospital, Fazilka, where she was medically examined regarding the alleged rape and pregnancy and was thereafter referred to Guru Gobind Singh Medical Hospital, Faridkot, for treatment. Her statement was subsequently recorded at the said hospital in the presence of her mother.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is not the main accused in the present case and that the principal allegations have been levelled against co-accused Praveen Vij, who allegedly established physical relations with the prosecutrix. It was submitted that the role attributed to the petitioner is limited to introducing the prosecutrix to the said co-accused and calling the prosecutrix and Praveen Vij to his/her house, where they allegedly established physical relations. It was further submitted that the petitioner had called the prosecutrix and asked her to bring gold belonging to her mother and ₹1,300 in cash to the petitioner’s house and thereafter told her to go to Ludhiana and meet the main accused. Learned counsel submitted that the pregnancy of the prosecutrix is attributable to the alleged physical relations with co-accused Praveen Vij and not to the petitioner. It was further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation and, therefore, deserves the concession of anticipatory bail.

Notice of motion.

On asking of the Court, Mr. Sahil Chowdhary, AAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, submitting that serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. It was argued that the role attributed to the petitioner is not merely incidental, as the petitioner allegedly introduced the minor prosecutrix to the main accused, facilitated their interaction, called the prosecutrix to the petitioner’s house and thereafter directed her to go to Ludhiana to meet the main accused. It was further submitted that the petitioner allegedly asked the minor to bring gold belonging to her mother and cash of ₹1,300 and also threatened her with harm if she did not comply with the directions to meet the co-accused. Learned State counsel contended that the prosecutrix was a minor at the relevant time and the allegations disclose active facilitation of the commission of the offence. It was, therefore, argued that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail.

Having considered the rival submissions and the material available on record, this Court is not inclined to extend the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

The fact that the petitioner is not alleged to have herself established physical relations with the prosecutrix does not, at this stage, dilute the seriousness of the role attributed to her. As per the prosecution version, the petitioner was the person who introduced the minor prosecutrix to co-accused Parveen Vij, facilitated their interaction by calling them to her house and thereafter directed the prosecutrix to go to Ludhiana to meet the said co-accused. Significantly, the petitioner is also alleged to have asked the minor to bring approximately 2½ tolas of her mother’s gold and ₹1,300 in cash and to have retained the said articles at her house. She thereafter allegedly compelled the prosecutrix, by extending threats, to go to Ludhiana and meet the main accused. Thus, the role attributed to the petitioner, prima facie, is one of active facilitation and not of a mere acquaintance or an innocent introduction.

It is also significant that the prosecutrix was admittedly a minor, having been born on 02.11.2008, and the alleged occurrence took place in June 2026. The provisions of the POCSO Act are intended to afford special protection to children against sexual offences and exploitation. At the stage of considering anticipatory bail, the Court is required to keep in view not only the nature and gravity of the allegations but also the specific role attributed to the accused. The fact that the main allegation of sexual assault is against co-accused Parveen Vij cannot, by itself, entitle the petitioner to anticipatory bail when the material on record prima facie indicates that the petitioner facilitated the minor’s contact with the main accused and played a role in taking her to the situation in which the alleged offence was committed. The matter also requires investigation with regard to the exact role of the petitioner, the circumstances in which the minor was taken to the petitioner’s house, the gold and cash allegedly brought there, and the subsequent events leading to her being sent to Ludhiana. In these circumstances, this Court is not persuaded to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner.

Consequently, the present petition seeking anticipatory bail is dismissed.

It is clarified that none of the observations made herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.