CRM-M- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT 212 HARSH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER CORAM: HON'BLE Present: KIRTI SINGH 1. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraks regular bail to Sections 137, 96, 140(3), 75(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 8 of the POCSO, registered at Police Station 2. -18783-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Advocate Mr. Shivam Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner(s). 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. 137, 96, 140(3), 75(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 8 of the POCSO, registered at Police Station Bhiwani Civil Lines, District The contents of the FIR are reproduced below: “It is submitted that I, House No. 1097, Sector 13, Bhiwani. I had given a complaint a few days earlier against one boy Harsh son of Neeraj, Vidyanagar. The same boy today morning at about 4 o'clock took away my daughter xxxx, aged 14 years, from my father's house No. 2444, Sector 13, Bhiwani, by luring/alluring her away from home, and he has taken my girl Maruti Brezza No. DL 11 CF 7383, silver colour. I apprehend danger to the honour and life of my daughter. Kindly strictest possible action be taken under the appropriate sections of IPC (363, 366 boy Harsh son of Neeraj is 08684972301, and the number of his uncle is 9050xxx. His parents support him and give him money and vehicle for aimless roaming. I apprehend danger to the honour and life of my daughter apprehend danger to the honour and life of my daughter taken as early as possible and the strictest possible action be taken. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-18783-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 26.05.2026 ......Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ...Respondents KIRTI SINGH , Advocate and Mr. Shivam Jindal, Advocate AG, Haryana. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 of ha Sanhita (for short- ‘BNSS’), is for grant of the petitioner, in case FIR No.292 dated 23.12.2025, under 137, 96, 140(3), 75(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 8 of the POCSO, Bhiwani Civil Lines, District Bhiwani, Haryana reproduced below:- It is submitted that I, xxxx, Advocate, wife of Sombir, resident of House No. 1097, Sector 13, Bhiwani. I had given a complaint a few days earlier against one boy Harsh son of Neeraj, presently resident of Shastri Marg, Vidyanagar. The same boy today morning at about 4 o'clock took away my , aged 14 years, from my father's house No. 2444, Sector 13, Bhiwani, by luring/alluring her away from home, and he has taken my girl xx Maruti Brezza No. DL 11 CF 7383, silver colour. I apprehend danger to the honour and life of my daughter. Kindly strictest possible action be taken under the appropriate sections of IPC (363, 366-A, POCSO Act). The number of that aj is 08684972301, and the number of his uncle is . His parents support him and give him money and vehicle for aimless roaming. I apprehend danger to the honour and life of my daughter xxxx apprehend danger to the honour and life of my daughter xxx. Kindly action be taken as early as possible and the strictest possible action be taken." (O&M) 6 Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 of or grant of , under 137, 96, 140(3), 75(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 8 of the POCSO, Haryana. , Advocate, wife of Sombir, resident of House No. 1097, Sector 13, Bhiwani. I had given a complaint a few days earlier presently resident of Shastri Marg, Vidyanagar. The same boy today morning at about 4 o'clock took away my , aged 14 years, from my father's house No. 2444, Sector 13, xxx in Maruti Brezza No. DL 11 CF 7383, silver colour. I apprehend danger to the honour and life of my daughter. Kindly strictest possible action be taken under A, POCSO Act). The number of that aj is 08684972301, and the number of his uncle is . His parents support him and give him money and vehicle for aimless xxxx. I . Kindly action be SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.05.26 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 3. petitioner on the complaint made by the mother of the prosecutrix the prosecutrix acquainted with record to the prosecutrix in her statement categorically stated that the petitioner had not committed any wrong acts with her. custody of 0 4. submissions made by the learned counsel f counsel, upon instructions from that the petitioner He has filed custody certificate in Court today and the same record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner ha custody of charges were framed on 24.03.2026, and o witnesses, case bearing FIR No.296/2024 is on bail. 5. parties. -18783-2026 (O&M) -2- Learned counsel for the petitioner petitioner, now aged 19 years, has been falsely implicated in the present case he complaint made by the mother of the prosecutrix prosecutrix, age of whom is a disputed question of fact, acquainted with the petitioner. Moreove substantiate the allegations leve the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS, categorically stated that the petitioner had not committed any wrong acts with her. It is submitted that the petitioner has custody of 05 months, 02 days. Per contra, learned State counsel submissions made by the learned counsel f , upon instructions from the Investigating Officer con that the petitioner was actively involved in the commission of the offence. has filed custody certificate in Court today and the same record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner ha custody of 05 months, 02 days. Investigation is complete. were framed on 24.03.2026, and o witnesses, two have been examined. He also submits that there is one bearing FIR No.296/2024, registered against the petitioner is on bail. Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the been falsely implicated in the present case he complaint made by the mother of the prosecutrix. It is submitted that is a disputed question of fact, was well er, there is no cogent evidence elled against the petitioner. In fact, recorded under Section 183 BNSS, had categorically stated that the petitioner had not committed any wrong acts he petitioner has already undergone an actual learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned State the Investigating Officer concerned, state actively involved in the commission of the offence. has filed custody certificate in Court today and the same is taken o record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone an actual . Investigation is complete. He submits that were framed on 24.03.2026, and out of a total of 22 prosecution He also submits that there is one other registered against the petitioner, in which he Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the submits that the been falsely implicated in the present case It is submitted that well- on In fact, had categorically stated that the petitioner had not committed any wrong acts already undergone an actual vehemently opposed the Learned State states actively involved in the commission of the offence. taken on undergone an actual submits that prosecution other in which he Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.05.26 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 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 consideration the nature of the offence, severity of the punishment and material on record. 8. that the charges witnesses proceedings, thus petitioner and 02 days -18783-2026 (O&M) -3- 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 t 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 i accused person will stand his trial when called upon. more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after 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 the trial but in such cases, "necessity" is the operative test. 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 evidence, must take into consideration the nature of the offence, severity of the punishment and prima facie, the involvement of material on record. Reverting to the case in hand, it is borne out from the record charges were framed on 24.03.2026 witnesses, only two have been examined proceedings, thus, indicates that the conclusion of trial is not imminent. The petitioner has already remained in actual custody for a period of and 02 days. Before proceeding, a gainful reference can be made to the observations passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. , relevant paras whereof reads thus: In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from t 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. 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. 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. 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 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." 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 involvement of the accused and the Reverting to the case in hand, it is borne out from the record on 24.03.2026. Out of the 22 cited prosecution examined till date. The pace of the , indicates that the conclusion of trial is not imminent. The already remained in actual custody for a period of 05 months 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 t is required to ensure that an 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. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons to secure their attendance at 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 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 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 accused and the Reverting to the case in hand, it is borne out from the record cited prosecution . The pace of the , indicates that the conclusion of trial is not imminent. The 05 months SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.05.26 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 9. petitioner is facing trial in Hon’ble Supreme Court in and another, 2012 (2) SCC 382 present case are to be seen while deciding a bail application and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in other case(s). The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced herein 10. 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 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. 11. the petitioner pose a flight risk or that conduct of examined -18783-2026 (O&M) -4- As regards the submission of learned State counsel that petitioner is facing trial in one more crimi Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (2) SCC 382 that the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen while deciding a bail application and the bail ation of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in other case(s). The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced herein-below:- “As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc.” 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 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 Presently, no material has been placed on record to suggest that the petitioner pose a flight risk or that conduct of the trial, particularly whe d. Therefore, upon taking into account all the considerations stated s regards the submission of learned State counsel that more criminal case, it has been held by the Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. that the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen while deciding a bail application and the bail ation of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in other case(s). The relevant portion of the said “As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal dents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the hile 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 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 been placed on record to suggest that the petitioner pose a flight risk or that his release would impede the fair en the material witnesses sta Therefore, upon taking into account all the considerations stated s regards the submission of learned State counsel that , it has been held by the Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. that the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen while deciding a bail application and the bail ation of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in other case(s). The relevant portion of the said “As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal dents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the hile 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 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 been placed on record to suggest that release would impede the fair and Therefore, upon taking into account all the considerations stated SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.05.26 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- herein-before, and without expressing an opinion on t 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, obliges the Court to ensure that pre punitive character. The prolon trial being concluded in the near future, would also run contrary to the settled legal principle that ‘bail is the rule and jail is the exception’, reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Uttar Pradesh and another (2018) 3 SCC 22. 12. may prejudice the trial, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail on furnishing a bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. -18783-2026 (O&M) -5- before, and without expressing an opinion on t 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 nce 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-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 rule and jail is the exception’, reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Uttar Pradesh and another (2018) 3 SCC 22. Without commenting anything on the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice the trial, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail on furnishing a bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. The petitioner shall also abide by the following conditions: (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 offence of which he is 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 or to any police officer or 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 pace of the proceedings and the substantial period of incarceration already undergone, would not nce 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, trial incarceration does not assume a ged 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 rule and jail is the exception’, reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2018) 3 SCC 22. Without commenting anything on the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice the trial, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail on 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 will not pressurize/intimidate the 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 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 he 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 nce 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, trial incarceration does not assume a ged 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 rule and jail is the exception’, as s. State of Without commenting anything on the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice the trial, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is dequate bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned learned trial Court/Duty The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on the date the 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 SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.05.26 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 13. prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court. 14. 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. 15. disposed of. May 26, 202 SwarnjitS -18783-2026 (O&M) -6- tamper with the evidence. (vi) The petitioner will not associate himself with in any manner. 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 pression 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), disposed of. , 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whethe reportable tamper with the evidence. The petitioner will not associate himself with the victim In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail However, nothing stated above shall be construed as a final pression 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 In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail However, nothing stated above shall be construed as a final pression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court would proceed independently of the observations made in the present case which if any, also stands SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.05.26 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document