CRM-M-69597 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT (219) Ramesh Bahadur State of Haryana. CORAM: Present: ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral) 1. petitioner in the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, at Police Station Sarai Khwaja, Faridabad, Haryana. 2. record. 3. has been falsely implicated in the present case and has been in custody since 02.11.2023. It is argued that during the course of trial, the prosecutrix has not supported the case of the prosecution and has turned hostile. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the judgment passed by the Karnataka High Court in Criminal Petition No.6844 of 2024 titled -1- 69597-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Ramesh Bahadur Versus State of Haryana. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN **** Mr. Vaibhav Parashar, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Akshita Chauhan, DAG, Haryana **** ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral) Prayer in the present petition is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.372 dated 29.10.2023, registered under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, at Police Station Sarai Khwaja, Faridabad, Custody certificate filed by learned Stat Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has been in custody since 02.11.2023. It is argued that during the course of trial, the prosecutrix t supported the case of the prosecution and has turned hostile. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the judgment passed by the Karnataka High Court in Criminal Petition No.6844 of 2024 titled IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-69597-2025 Date of Decision:- 04.02.2026 ……Petitioner ……Respondent ALOK JAIN ibhav Parashar, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Akshita Chauhan, DAG, Haryana. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of regular bail to the FIR No.372 dated 29.10.2023, registered under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, at Police Station Sarai Khwaja, Faridabad, Custody certificate filed by learned State counsel is taken on Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has been in custody since 02.11.2023. It is argued that during the course of trial, the prosecutrix t supported the case of the prosecution and has turned hostile. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the judgment passed by the Karnataka High Court in Criminal Petition No.6844 of 2024 titled 04.02.2026 ……Petitioner ……Respondent Prayer in the present petition is for grant of regular bail to the FIR No.372 dated 29.10.2023, registered under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, at Police Station Sarai Khwaja, Faridabad, e counsel is taken on Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has been in custody since 02.11.2023. It is argued that during the course of trial, the prosecutrix t supported the case of the prosecution and has turned hostile. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the judgment passed by the Karnataka High Court in Criminal Petition No.6844 of 2024 titled MANJU 2026.02.13 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-69597 Ajay K. V. vs. State of Karnataka and anothe victim has turned hostile, the accused is entitled to the concession of bail. 4. the DNA report, the DNA profile of the accused matches with that of the petitioner. It is also not disputed that the victim was a minor aged about 15 years at the time of the alleged occurrence. 5. 6. is clearly distinguishable on facts. In the said case, the DNA report did not support the prosecution version and the victim therein was about 17 years of age. However, in the present case, the prosecution version and the victim was only 15 years time. 7. rigour of Section 6 of the POCSO Act, the tender age of the victim, and the incriminating DNA evidence available on record which the petitioner with the commission of the offence brushed aside. This Court does not find any ground to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner dismissed. February 04, 2026 Manju Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether Reportable: -2- 69597-2025 Ajay K. V. vs. State of Karnataka and anothe victim has turned hostile, the accused is entitled to the concession of bail. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that as per the DNA report, the DNA profile of the accused matches with that of the t is also not disputed that the victim was a minor aged about 15 years at the time of the alleged occurrence. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is clearly distinguishable on facts. In the said case, the DNA report did not support the prosecution version and the victim therein was about 17 years of age. However, in the present case, the prosecution version and the victim was only 15 years Considering the seriousness of the allegations, the statutory rigour of Section 6 of the POCSO Act, the tender age of the victim, and the inating DNA evidence available on record which the petitioner with the commission of the offence brushed aside. This Court does not find any ground to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner, accordi February 04, 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether Reportable:- Yes/No Ajay K. V. vs. State of Karnataka and another to contend that once the victim has turned hostile, the accused is entitled to the concession of bail. , learned counsel for the State submits that as per the DNA report, the DNA profile of the accused matches with that of the t is also not disputed that the victim was a minor aged about 15 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is clearly distinguishable on facts. In the said case, the DNA report did not support the prosecution version and the victim therein was about 17 years of age. However, in the present case, the DNA report supports the prosecution version and the victim was only 15 years of age at the relevant Considering the seriousness of the allegations, the statutory rigour of Section 6 of the POCSO Act, the tender age of the victim, and the inating DNA evidence available on record which prima facie links the petitioner with the commission of the offence which cannot be lightly brushed aside. This Court does not find any ground to grant the concession ccordingly, the present petition is (ALOK JAIN) JUDGE to contend that once the , learned counsel for the State submits that as per the DNA report, the DNA profile of the accused matches with that of the t is also not disputed that the victim was a minor aged about 15 The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is clearly distinguishable on facts. In the said case, the DNA report did not support the prosecution version and the victim therein was about 17 years DNA report supports the at the relevant Considering the seriousness of the allegations, the statutory rigour of Section 6 of the POCSO Act, the tender age of the victim, and the links cannot be lightly brushed aside. This Court does not find any ground to grant the concession ngly, the present petition is MANJU 2026.02.13 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document