Click the Play button to listen to article

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has denied pre-arrest bail to a 63-year-old man accused of sexually harassing his niece, who had been living in his house for work. The Court relied on a transcript of a call in which he allegedly admitted to "a very big mistake" and asked her not to make an issue of it.

Justice Ramesh Kumari held that the transcript "clearly prima facie points out that the petitioner sexually molested the victim".

"The act alleged against the petitioner is horrific, considering his age and relationship with the victim. Therefore, he is not entitled for interim pre-arrest bail," the court held.

The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of the BNSS (earlier Section 438 CrPC) in FIR. The FIR was registered under Section 75(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 354-A IPC).

According to the FIR, the victim had been living with her aunt and uncle for about a year because her office was nearby. The petitioner is the elder brother of her father. On 27.08.2026, her aunt was away visiting her village for Rakhi.

The victim alleged that the petitioner looked at an allergy on her hand, began reading her palm, touched her feet and then touched her inappropriately under her clothes. She alleged that she escaped, ran to a neighbour's house, called her parents and the police helpline 112, and gave a written statement at the police station in the presence of a legal advisor and her mother.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that no offence had been committed. He said the petitioner had been falsely implicated because he had scolded the victim for not keeping her room clean. He added that the petitioner was ready to settle the matter and to join the investigation.

The State and counsel for the complainant opposed bail and pointed to the petitioner's age, his relationship with the victim and the nature of the allegations. The complainant's counsel placed on record a transcript of a conversation in which the petitioner was calling the victim to talk to him. 

The Court held that pre-arrest bail is a discretionary relief and cannot be claimed as of right. It noted that the victim is related by blood to the petitioner and "has no reason to falsely implicate him." It rejected the defence that she had done so because he scolded her about an untidy room. A victim, it said, "cannot be expected to come forward and lodge a police case against him for the simple reason that he reprimanded her for keeping her room untidy."

The Court reproduced the transcript, with its English translation. In it, the petitioner allegedly says:

"I made a mistake, and it was a very big mistake on my part. But now, please do not make a big issue out of this... our relationship will be badly affected because of this, for both of us."

He is further recorded as saying that "whatever happened, happened in the flow of the moment" and that he did not know "what kind of madness came over me". He also says he is "feeling a lot of guilt about this" and urges her to come home and "sort things out."

On this basis, the Court held that the transcript prima facie showed that the petitioner had molested the victim, and that he was not entitled to pre-arrest bail.

Case Title: XXXXX v. State of Haryana

Counsel: Rishabh Garg for the petitioner;

Brijesh Sharma, AAG, Haryana; Anirudh Kaushal for the complainant

Tags: