CRM-M-56560 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT (115) Tasleem State of Haryana CORAM: Present: ALOK JAIN, 1. to the petitioner in case FIR No. 352 dated 15.11.2024 registered under Sections 351(3) and 64(1) of BNS and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 at Police Station Punhana, Distri 2. placing reliance case “Laxman Jangde Vs. State of Ch to contend that mere touching of private provisions of Section 376 IPC Section 7 POCSO petitioner’s alleged action regarding -1- 56560-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Versus State of Haryana HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN **** Mr. Farukh Abdullah, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Swati Batra, Sr. DAG, Haryana assisted by SI Ranbir Singh. Mr. Arjun Dhingra, Advocate and Mr. Mukul Bura, Advocate for the complainant. ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 352 dated 15.11.2024 registered under Sections 351(3) and 64(1) of BNS and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 at Police Station Punhana, District Nuh. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued placing reliance upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Laxman Jangde Vs. State of Chhattisgarh to contend that mere touching of private parts would not attract the rigorous provisions of Section 376 IPC (Section 64 of BNS) but sexual assault under Section 7 POCSO. It is further submitted that, as per the MLR, the ’s alleged action regarding fingering in the anus IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-56560-2025 Date of Decision:- 10.03.2026 ……Petitioner ……Respondent ALOK JAIN Mr. Farukh Abdullah, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Swati Batra, Sr. DAG, Haryana Arjun Dhingra, Advocate and vocate for the complainant. The present petition has been filed seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 352 dated 15.11.2024 registered under Sections 351(3) and 64(1) of BNS and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued, upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in attisgarh”, 2025 live law (SC) 928 parts would not attract the rigorous (Section 64 of BNS) but sexual assault under . It is further submitted that, as per the MLR, the fingering in the anus was limited to an 10.03.2026 ……Petitioner ……Respondent The present petition has been filed seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 352 dated 15.11.2024 registered under Sections 351(3) and 64(1) of BNS and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 , upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in , 2025 live law (SC) 928 parts would not attract the rigorous (Section 64 of BNS) but sexual assault under . It is further submitted that, as per the MLR, the was limited to an MANJU 2026.03.10 18:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-56560 attempt rather than a completed act. petitioner has already undergone incarceration for more than 01 year, whereas the maximum punishment under Section 7 of the POCSO Act is only 3 to 5 years. 3. delay of 01 day in lodging the FIR and that the allegations are inherently improbable as the alleged occurrence took place in the petitioner’s grocery shop, which is a public place one visited the shop during the alleged period submits that the complainant and his family used to purchase groceries from the petitioner’s shop and that the alleged victim had misbehaved with the petitioner, whereupon he slapped her. According to the petitioner, the present FIR that the petitioner is a young boy aged about 22 years and has clean antecedents, and therefore deserve 4. certificate of the petitioner in Court today, which is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. As per the said certificate, the petitioner has been in custody for 01 year, 03 months and 24 days. 5. complainant and the victim, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submits that the victim is a minor girl aged about 09 years. It is further submitted that prosecution case, which is further corroborated by the medical evidence. -2- 56560-2025 attempt rather than a completed act. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has already undergone incarceration for more than 01 year, whereas the maximum punishment under Section 7 of the POCSO Act is only 3 to 5 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner delay of 01 day in lodging the FIR and that the allegations are inherently improbable as the alleged occurrence took place in the petitioner’s grocery shop, which is a public place, prosecutrix stayed there for 10 minute and no one visited the shop during the alleged period submits that the complainant and his family used to purchase groceries from the petitioner’s shop and that the alleged victim had misbehaved with the petitioner, whereupon he slapped her. According to the petitioner, the FIR has been falsely filed with ulterior motive that the petitioner is a young boy aged about 22 years and has clean antecedents, and therefore deserves the concession of regular bail. Per contra, learned State counsel has certificate of the petitioner in Court today, which is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. As per the said certificate, the petitioner has been in stody for 01 year, 03 months and 24 days. Learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant and the victim, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submits that the victim is a minor girl aged about 09 years. It is further ubmitted that victim has been examined and duly supported the prosecution case, which is further corroborated by the medical evidence. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has already undergone incarceration for more than 01 year, whereas the maximum punishment under Section 7 of the POCSO Act is Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that there is a delay of 01 day in lodging the FIR and that the allegations are inherently improbable as the alleged occurrence took place in the petitioner’s grocery rix stayed there for 10 minute and no one visited the shop during the alleged period. Learned counsel further submits that the complainant and his family used to purchase groceries from the petitioner’s shop and that the alleged victim had misbehaved with the petitioner, whereupon he slapped her. According to the petitioner, the filed with ulterior motive. It is also submitted that the petitioner is a young boy aged about 22 years and has clean s the concession of regular bail. earned State counsel has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner in Court today, which is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. As per the said certificate, the petitioner has been in stody for 01 year, 03 months and 24 days. earned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant and the victim, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submits that the victim is a minor girl aged about 09 years. It is further victim has been examined and duly supported the prosecution case, which is further corroborated by the medical evidence. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has already undergone incarceration for more than 01 year, whereas the maximum punishment under Section 7 of the POCSO Act is further argued that there is a delay of 01 day in lodging the FIR and that the allegations are inherently improbable as the alleged occurrence took place in the petitioner’s grocery rix stayed there for 10 minute and no further submits that the complainant and his family used to purchase groceries from the petitioner’s shop and that the alleged victim had misbehaved with the petitioner, whereupon he slapped her. According to the petitioner, the . It is also submitted that the petitioner is a young boy aged about 22 years and has clean the custody certificate of the petitioner in Court today, which is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. As per the said certificate, the petitioner has been in earned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant and the victim, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submits that the victim is a minor girl aged about 09 years. It is further victim has been examined and duly supported the prosecution case, which is further corroborated by the medical evidence. MANJU 2026.03.10 18:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-56560 Learned counsel further submits that prosecution witnesses have been examined so far, wherea and other material witnesses are yet to be examined. 6. is no averment or material to show that the complainant’s family was indebted to the petitioner and, even otherwise, s alleged conduct of the petitioner towards a minor child. 7. 8. victim, who was about 09 years old at the time the medical evidence on record, and the fact that the victim has stood by her allegations in her testimony, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of the concession of regular bail to the petitioner at this stage 9. March 10, 2026 manju Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether Reportable: -3- 56560-2025 Learned counsel further submits that only 02 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far, wherea and other material witnesses are yet to be examined. Learned counsel for the complainant further submits that there is no averment or material to show that the complainant’s family was indebted to the petitioner and, even otherwise, s alleged conduct of the petitioner towards a minor child. Heard learned counsel for the parties Considering the gravity of the allegations, the tender age of the victim, who was about 09 years old at the time the medical evidence on record, and the fact that the victim has stood by her allegations in her testimony, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of the concession of regular bail to the petitioner at this stage Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. March 10, 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether Reportable:- Yes/No only 02 witnesses out of 12 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far, whereas the complainant and other material witnesses are yet to be examined. Learned counsel for the complainant further submits that there is no averment or material to show that the complainant’s family was indebted to the petitioner and, even otherwise, such a plea cannot justify the alleged conduct of the petitioner towards a minor child. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Considering the gravity of the allegations, the tender age of the victim, who was about 09 years old at the time of the alleged occurrence, the medical evidence on record, and the fact that the victim has stood by her allegations in her testimony, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of the concession of regular bail to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. (ALOK JAIN) JUDGE out of 12 s the complainant Learned counsel for the complainant further submits that there is no averment or material to show that the complainant’s family was uch a plea cannot justify the Considering the gravity of the allegations, the tender age of the occurrence, the medical evidence on record, and the fact that the victim has stood by her allegations in her testimony, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for MANJU 2026.03.10 18:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document