The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to grant relief to absconding Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA Harmeet Singh Pathanmajra in a rape and cheating case, observing that he fled the country by fraudulent means after escaping police custody.
In a ruling delivered by Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya, the court declined to quash arrest warrants issued against the legislator from Sanour and declined to interfere with an order declaring him a proclaimed person. The decision came on 12 February 2026, following Pathanmajra’s petition challenging the warrants and proclamation proceedings.
The case stems from an FIR registered on 1 September 2025 at Civil Lines police station in Patiala, based on a complaint from a woman in Zirakpur. The woman accused Pathanmajra of physically exploiting her on the pretext of marriage, leading to charges under sections including rape (Section 376 IPC, later including 376(2)(n)), cheating (Section 420), and criminal intimidation (Section 506).
Pathanmajra was initially arrested in Karnal, Haryana, but escaped custody by attacking police officers. He subsequently left India and is currently in Australia. Lookout notices were issued against him after he fled India. A Patiala court declared him a proclaimed offender on 20 December 2025 after he repeatedly failed to appear.
The MLA’s counsel, Advocate Nikhil Ghai, argued that arrest warrants were unnecessary, as police could arrest without them even outside Punjab, and noted that anticipatory bail proceedings were pending. He also said that Pathanmajra is residing in Australia, and he has not been served any notice there.
However, Additional Advocate General Chanchal K Singla rejected the defence arguments, saying that the warrants were justified because Pathanmajra escaped from custody after assaulting officers and continues to ignore lookout notices.
Justice Dahiya observed that Pathanmajra had deliberately disregarded the investigative process and was absconding after committing serious and heinous offences. The court stated, “The petitioner, who is accused of serious and heinous offences, has deliberately disregarded the investigative process and is absconding. He is also accused of slipping out of the country by adopting fraudulent means. Issuance of arrest warrants against him, therefore, cannot be termed a measure of harassment; rather, it was justified to secure his presence for investigation.”
The judge further noted that legal requirements for proclamation had been met, including the expiry of the mandatory 30-day period, and described the case as one of “open defiance of the process by breaking the law.”
Pathanmajra has claimed that the allegations arose after his relations with AAP soured.
