A Karnal man accused of stalking and sexually harassing a 21-year-old woman has been denied anticipatory bail by the Punjab and Haryana High Court after it found that the translated version of the FIR placed before it left out a crucial allegation.
Justice Sandeep Moudgil held that the omission was not a minor discrepancy, but a material suppression that diluted the prosecution’s case and disentitled the petitioner from discretionary relief.
The case has its genesis in an FIR registered on May 14 at Nissing police station in Karnal district under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The complainant alleged that she was proceeding to a temple in the village on May 12 when the petitioner followed her, stepped upon her slipper from behind, touched her shoulder and private parts, and abused her when she objected.
The prosecution also alleged that the petitioner had been following the complainant for some time, making improper gestures towards her and later roaming around her house, causing apprehension and fear. Her statement was subsequently recorded before a Judicial Magistrate under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, where she reiterated the allegations.
The petitioner, through counsel, argued that the FIR had been registered after a delay of two days and was a “calculated counter-blast” intended to “pre-empt and neutralise” him. He also alleged false implication, claiming enmity between the families.
However, the High Court found that the petitioner’s translated version of the FIR had materially altered the nature of the allegations. Justice Moudgil noted that the original FIR specifically alleged that the accused “put his foot on her slipper from behind, touched her shoulder and private parts.”
In contrast, the petitioner’s translated version omitted the allegation regarding touching of private parts and instead stated only a vague narration that he “touched her shoulder and touched her…”.
The Bench observed that the petition and grounds repeatedly portrayed the case as involving only touching of the shoulder, improper language and stalking, while stressing the absence of medical evidence and independent witnesses.
“The omission is not a minor linguistic discrepancy but concerns a material accusation forming the very foundation of the offences alleged against the petitioner,” Justice Moudgil asserted.
The Court added that had the complete allegation been fairly disclosed, it would have been clear that the complainant’s case was not confined to touching of the shoulder or passing remarks, but included a specific allegation of physical contact with her private parts.
“A litigant seeking the extraordinary discretionary relief of anticipatory bail is under a duty to make a full, fair and candid disclosure of all material facts,” the Bench observed, adding that the petitioner had relied on a “self-serving translation” which concealed a crucial allegation.
The Court held that the concealment struck at the root of the petitioner’s bona fides. It added that the petitioner had “deliberately withheld and suppressed” a material part of the allegations in the FIR and that such suppression amounted to misrepresentation of the record. Holding that the petitioner had failed to approach the Court with clean hands, the High Court dismissed the petition.
