The Congress on Monday accused the union Home Ministry of trying to protect the son of Haryana BJP President Subhash Barala accused of stalking and trying to abduct a young woman.

Congress spokesperson Randeep Surjewala said the Chandigarh Police, which comes under the Home Ministry, diluted the charges and booked Vikas Barala under bailable offences.

Surjewala said Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Bharatiya Janata Party chief Amit Shah should say why the BJP leader's son was being protected and sought the Haryana BJP President's resignation.

"He (Vikas) followed the woman for seven kilometres, tried to stop the car. They even tried to open the door and enter the car. Is it not a case of attempted kidnapping and abduction? Is it not a case molestation and outraging the modesty of a woman? If it is so, why were these charges not pressed against the accused?" asked Surjewala.

He said the police initially said it was a case of abduction and outraging the modesty of a woman, both of which are non-bailable offences. However, the police booked the FIR under different sections which were bailable offences.

"The police changed its statement. They said we have only enforced the offence of stalking, not even that of outraging the modesty. They said it was forceful restraint but omitted abduction… She said there was an attempt to abduct her, why was it not written in FIR? This is dereliction of duty.

"Does it not prove that between 2.30 p.m. and 5 p.m., the message from the Home Ministry and the Centre reached the Chandigarh Police? Why are they going out of way to hush up the matter instead of punishing the guilty?"

He accused Modi and Amit Shah of trying to save the BJP leader's son.

Surjewala said a few years ago, a Haryana Congress leader was made to resign after an incident involving his son. The Haryana BJP President should also resign.

Chandigarh's Deputy Superintendent of Police Satish Kumar said Barala and a friend were booked under Section 354D (stalking a woman) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Section 341 (wrongful restraint) was later added in the FIR.