CRM-M- pIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT (213) ANUJ STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON'BLE Present: KIRTI SINGH 1. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short regular bail to Section 365 IPC Act,2012, 2. -24331-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM Date of Decision: Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Mr. Harsh Rana, Advocate and Mr. Anil Kumar Rana, Advocate Mr. Brijesh Sharma, AAG, Haryana. **** KIRTI SINGH, J. (ORAL) Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short regular bail to the petitioner, in case FIR No. Section 365 IPC (Section 140(3) of BNS) , registered at Police Station Mujessar The contents of the FIR are reproduced below: “1, Surendra Thakur, son of Hasai Thakur, resident of village Sitaruba, District Bhojpur (Bihar), "Panditji" in Subhash Nagar, Old Press Colony, Faridabad, state as follows:l am married and have four children (three daughters and one son). My eldest daughter, xxxx home on 15/02/2025 without informing anyone. She is a student of Class 10 at a Government School. At the time of her disappearance, she was wearing her school uniform. Physical Description of Complexion: Dark Face: Oval/Long Build: Slim Height: 4'8" Since her disappearance, I received one phone call from her stating that she would return home soon, but she has not returned yet. We have searched for her extensively on our own, but no clue to her whereabouts has been found. 1 earnestly request the police department to help search for my daughter. I shall be deeply grateful for your assistance.SD/- Surendra Thakur (Applicant) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-24331-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 06.05.2026 ......Petitioner Versus .....Respondent MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH and Advocate for the petitioner. Brijesh Sharma, AAG, Haryana. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short- ‘BNSS’), is for grant of the petitioner, in case FIR No.128 dated 13.03.2025, under of BNS) and Section 6 of the POCSO Mujessar, District Faridabad, Haryana. reproduced below:- 1, Surendra Thakur, son of Hasai Thakur, resident of village Sitaruba, District Bhojpur (Bihar), and current tenant of "Panditji" in Subhash Nagar, Old Press Colony, Faridabad, state as follows:l am married and have four children (three daughters and xxxx, aged approximately 16 years, left home on 15/02/2025 without informing anyone. She is a student of Class 10 at a Government School. At the time of her disappearance, she was wearing her school uniform. Physical Description of xxxx Oval/Long Build: Slim Height: 4'8" Since her disappearance, I received one phone call from her stating that she would return home soon, but she has not returned yet. We have searched for her extensively on our own, but no clue to her found. 1 earnestly request the police department to help search for my daughter. I shall be deeply grateful Surendra Thakur (Applicant)” ......Petitioner .....Respondents Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 of or grant of , under and Section 6 of the POCSO Faridabad, Haryana. 1, Surendra Thakur, son of Hasai Thakur, resident of and current tenant of "Panditji" in Subhash Nagar, Old Press Colony, Faridabad, state as follows:l am married and have four children (three daughters and , aged approximately 16 years, left home on 15/02/2025 without informing anyone. She is a student of Class 10 at a Government School. At the time of her disappearance, xxxx: Oval/Long Build: Slim Height: 4'8" Since her disappearance, I received one phone call from her stating that she would return home soon, but she has not returned yet. We have searched for her extensively on our own, but no clue to her found. 1 earnestly request the police department to help search for my daughter. I shall be deeply grateful SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.05.06 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 3. petitioner has been false registered as a missing complainant filed by the father of the prosecutrix is submitted that the petitioner has been nominated as an accused due to his acquaintance fact. Moreover, the prosecutrix had voluntarily left her home, and there was no threat, inducement or coercion by the petitioner in that regard. It is further submitted that there is no evidence on record, medical or otherwise, substantiate the testimony of the prosecutrix recorded before the learned trial Court further reveals that no overt allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. Rather, it is t petitioner was not aware of the age of the prosecutrix, and that he had been implicated due to the pressure exerted by her family. is placed on old petitioner has already undergone an actual custody of 01 year and days and has clean antecedents. 4. submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. instructions from petitioner was actively involved in the commission of the offence. State counsel taken on record. As per cus actual custody of submits that t -24331-2026 (O&M) -2- Learned counsel for the petitioner petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case registered as a missing complainant filed by the father of the prosecutrix is submitted that the petitioner has been nominated as an accused due to his acquaintance with the prosecutrix, age of who Moreover, the prosecutrix had voluntarily left her home, and there was no threat, inducement or coercion by the petitioner in that regard. It is further submitted that there is no evidence on record, medical or otherwise, substantiate the allegations levelled against the petitioner. the testimony of the prosecutrix recorded before the learned trial Court further reveals that no overt allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. Rather, it is the categoric admission of the prosecutrix that the petitioner was not aware of the age of the prosecutrix, and that he had been implicated due to the pressure exerted by her family. is placed on Annexure P-6. Learned counsel submits old petitioner has already undergone an actual custody of 01 year and days and has clean antecedents. Per contra, learned State counsel submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. instructions from the Investigating Officer concerned petitioner was actively involved in the commission of the offence. State counsel has filed custody certificate in Court today and the same taken on record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone an actual custody of 01 year and 29 days. Investigation is complete. submits that the charges have been framed Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the ly implicated in the present case, which was initially registered as a missing complainant filed by the father of the prosecutrix is submitted that the petitioner has been nominated as an accused due to his with the prosecutrix, age of whom is a disputed question of Moreover, the prosecutrix had voluntarily left her home, and there was no threat, inducement or coercion by the petitioner in that regard. It is further submitted that there is no evidence on record, medical or otherwise, levelled against the petitioner. A bare perusal of the testimony of the prosecutrix recorded before the learned trial Court further reveals that no overt allegations have been levelled against the he categoric admission of the prosecutrix that the petitioner was not aware of the age of the prosecutrix, and that he had been implicated due to the pressure exerted by her family. Reliance in this regard Learned counsel submits that the now 22 year old petitioner has already undergone an actual custody of 01 year and learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He, upon Investigating Officer concerned, states that the petitioner was actively involved in the commission of the offence. Learned has filed custody certificate in Court today and the same tody certificate, the petitioner has undergone an . Investigation is complete. He also framed on 26.09.2025 and out of a total submits that the , which was initially registered as a missing complainant filed by the father of the prosecutrix. It is submitted that the petitioner has been nominated as an accused due to his m is a disputed question of Moreover, the prosecutrix had voluntarily left her home, and there was no threat, inducement or coercion by the petitioner in that regard. It is further submitted that there is no evidence on record, medical or otherwise, to A bare perusal of the testimony of the prosecutrix recorded before the learned trial Court further reveals that no overt allegations have been levelled against the he categoric admission of the prosecutrix that the petitioner was not aware of the age of the prosecutrix, and that he had been Reliance in this regard year old petitioner has already undergone an actual custody of 01 year and 29 vehemently opposed the , upon that the Learned has filed custody certificate in Court today and the same is tody certificate, the petitioner has undergone an also out of a total SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.05.06 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- of 18 prosecution witnesses, 5. parties. 6. observations passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40 7. bail, the Court, though not required to make a roving inquiry into the evidence, must take into consideratio the punishment and material on record. 8. that charges came to be framed on prosecution witnesses ha indicates that the conclusion of trial is not imminent. The petitioner has -24331-2026 (O&M) -3- prosecution witnesses, only the prosecutrix Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the Before proceeding, a gainful reference can be made to the observations passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, relevant paras whereof reads thus: "21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begin conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. 22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, "necessity" is the operative test. country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of persona enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the most extraordinary circumstances Trite to say that at the stage of considering a petition seeking bail, the Court, though not required to make a roving inquiry into the evidence, must take into consideration the nature of the offence, severity of the punishment and prima facie, the involvement of the accused and the material on record. Reverting to the case in hand, it is borne out from the record at charges came to be framed on 26.09. prosecution witnesses has been examined. The pace of the proceedings, thus, indicates that the conclusion of trial is not imminent. The petitioner has the prosecutrix has been examined. Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the Before proceeding, a gainful reference can be made to the observations passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. paras whereof reads thus: In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. ime, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, "necessity" is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances." Trite to say that at the stage of considering a petition seeking bail, the Court, though not required to make a roving inquiry into the n the nature of the offence, severity of , the involvement of the accused and the Reverting to the case in hand, it is borne out from the record 26.09.2025. Yet, only one out of 18 cited been examined. The pace of the proceedings, thus, indicates that the conclusion of trial is not imminent. The petitioner has Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the Before proceeding, a gainful reference can be made to the Sanjay Chandra v. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of . Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an The courts owe s after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. ime, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at In this l liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the Trite to say that at the stage of considering a petition seeking bail, the Court, though not required to make a roving inquiry into the n the nature of the offence, severity of , the involvement of the accused and the Reverting to the case in hand, it is borne out from the record cited been examined. The pace of the proceedings, thus, indicates that the conclusion of trial is not imminent. The petitioner has SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.05.06 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- already remained in actual custody for a period of 9. against the petitioner, and the culpability, if any, would be tested and determined on the touchstone of evidence during the course of trial, the parameters governing the grant of bail necessitate a of the nature of accusation, the stage of the trial, the antecedents of the accused, and the likelihood of his absconding or influencing the course of justice. 10. the petitioner poses a flight risk or that his release would impede the fair conduct of prosecutrix stands examined. considerations stated herein the merits of the case lest it may prejudice the trial, this Court is of the opinion that the continued detention of the petitioner, in the backdrop of the pace of the proceedings and the substantial period of incarceration already undergone, would not advance the cause of justice. The guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which includes the right to a speedy trial, oblig incarceration does not assume a punitive character. The prolonged incarceration, without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future, would also run contrary to the settled legal principle that ‘bail i rule and jail is the exception’, in Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2018) 3 SCC 22. -24331-2026 (O&M) -4- already remained in actual custody for a period of While the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, and the culpability, if any, would be tested and determined on the touchstone of evidence during the course of trial, the parameters governing the grant of bail necessitate a of the nature of accusation, the stage of the trial, the antecedents of the accused, and the likelihood of his absconding or influencing the course of Presently, no material has been placed on record to suggest that the petitioner poses a flight risk or that his release would impede the fair conduct of the trial, particularly when the material witness viz. the prosecutrix stands examined. Therefore, upon tak considerations stated herein-before, and without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case lest it may prejudice the trial, this Court is of the opinion that the continued detention of the petitioner, in the backdrop of the ace of the proceedings and the substantial period of incarceration already undergone, would not advance the cause of justice. The guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which includes the right to a speedy trial, obliges the Court to ensure that pre incarceration does not assume a punitive character. The prolonged incarceration, without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future, would also run contrary to the settled legal principle that ‘bail i rule and jail is the exception’, as reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2018) 3 SCC already remained in actual custody for a period of 01 year and 29 days. the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, and the culpability, if any, would be tested and determined on the touchstone of evidence during the course of trial, the parameters governing the grant of bail necessitate a balanced consideration of the nature of accusation, the stage of the trial, the antecedents of the accused, and the likelihood of his absconding or influencing the course of ently, no material has been placed on record to suggest that the petitioner poses a flight risk or that his release would impede the fair , particularly when the material witness viz. the Therefore, upon taking into account all the before, and without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case lest it may prejudice the trial, this Court is of the opinion that the continued detention of the petitioner, in the backdrop of the ace of the proceedings and the substantial period of incarceration already undergone, would not advance the cause of justice. The guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which includes es the Court to ensure that pre-trial incarceration does not assume a punitive character. The prolonged incarceration, without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future, would also run contrary to the settled legal principle that ‘bail is the as reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2018) 3 SCC the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, and the culpability, if any, would be tested and determined on the touchstone of evidence during the course of trial, the balanced consideration of the nature of accusation, the stage of the trial, the antecedents of the accused, and the likelihood of his absconding or influencing the course of ently, no material has been placed on record to suggest that the petitioner poses a flight risk or that his release would impede the fair , particularly when the material witness viz. the ing into account all the before, and without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case lest it may prejudice the trial, this Court is of the opinion that the continued detention of the petitioner, in the backdrop of the ace of the proceedings and the substantial period of incarceration already undergone, would not advance the cause of justice. The guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which includes trial incarceration does not assume a punitive character. The prolonged incarceration, without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near s the as reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2018) 3 SCC SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.05.06 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 11. may prejudice the trial, the pres ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing adequate bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. 12. prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court. 13. expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court would proceed independently of the observations made in the present case which are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail 14. disposed of. May 06, 202 SwarnjitS -24331-2026 (O&M) -5- Without commenting anything on the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice the trial, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing adequate bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. The petitioner shall also abide by the following con (i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s). (iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. (iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused of, or for commission of which he is suspected. (v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court o tamper with the evidence. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court. However, nothing stated above shall be construed as a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court would proceed independently of the observations made in the present case which are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. , 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whethe reportable Without commenting anything on the merits of the case, lest it ent petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing adequate bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned learned trial Court/Duty The petitioner shall also abide by the following conditions:- The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence The petitioner will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused of, or for commission of The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail nothing stated above shall be construed as a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court would proceed independently of the observations made in the present case which are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail petition. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands (KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No Without commenting anything on the merits of the case, lest it ent petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing adequate bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned learned trial Court/Duty The petitioner will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on the date The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused of, or for commission of The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from r to any police officer or In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail nothing stated above shall be construed as a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court would proceed independently of the observations made in the present case which Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.05.06 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document