An accused evading arrest since the registration of an FIR cannot claim parity with co-accused apprehended and facing trial merely because the complainant and victim subsequently did not support the prosecution case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled.Dismissing the pre-arrest bail plea of an absconding accused, Justice Aaradhna Sawhney held that the petitioner stood on an “altogether different footing” from co-accused arrested and facing trial.The Court took note of the fact that the petitioner had continued to remain beyond the reach of the investigating agency.“Since lodging of the FIR, the petitioner has been evading arrest and has been absconding. Best efforts made by the investigating agency to apprehend him have not yielded any positive result,” the Bench said.The case has its genesis in an FIR registered on May 31, 2024, at Adarsh Nagar police station in Ballabgarh for kidnapping and other offences under Sections 365, 504 and 34 of the IPC and the provisions of the POCSO Act.The FIR followed a complaint by a minor girl’s father concerning her alleged abduction, sexual assault, besides threats to make her photographs viral.Justice Sawhney’s Bench, during the course of hearing, was told that school record obtained during the course of investigation showed the that the victim’s date of birth as May 25, 2009, making her approximately 15 years old at the time of the alleged incident.Her mobile phone, allegedly given to her by the petitioner-accused, was taken into possession. The call-detail records showed that the two had remained in regular telephonic contact.Two other accused were arrested in September 2024. A challan was subsequently presented against them, charges were framed and, six out of 33 prosecution witnesses had been examined when the High Court considered the petition.“Significantly, both the complainant and the victim have not supported the case of the prosecution during their examination,” Justice Sawhney noted in her order.The Bench observed it was evident that three out of four accused had been arrested.“Two were in custody, whereas the petitioner’s mother was on anticipatory bail. The present petitioner alone continued to evade arrest and was yet to be apprehended,” Justice Sawhney added.“We need to remind ourselves that the petitioner is involved in serious and grave offence of rape. They did not evade the arrest. Present petitioner stands on an altogether different footing. He neither surrendered before the police authorities nor he has been apprehended so far despite sustained efforts made by the Investigating Agency. Consequently, present petitioner is not similarly situated like the co-accused and thus he cannot claim parity with them, who are facing trial,” Justice Sawhney asserted.The Bench added petitioner had failed to make out a case of exceptional depravity/hardship in his favour, entitling his for the grant of extra ordinary relief of pre-arrest bail. The petition being devoid of merit was as such dismissed.