CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----8593 8593 8593 8593----2025 2025 2025 2025 ----1111---- 213 213 213 213 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----8593 8593 8593 8593----2025 2025 2025 2025 Date of Decision:- 07.07.2025 MANISH MANISH MANISH MANISH ....Petitioner Vs. STATE OF HARYANA STATE OF HARYANA STATE OF HARYANA STATE OF HARYANA ...Respondent CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM:---- HON'BLE MRS. HON'BLE MRS. HON'BLE MRS. HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI Present:- Mr.Sandeep Sharma, Advocate for petitioner. Ms. Aditi Girdhar, AAG, Haryana. ***** AMARJOT BHATTI, J. (Oral) AMARJOT BHATTI, J. (Oral) AMARJOT BHATTI, J. (Oral) AMARJOT BHATTI, J. (Oral) 1. Petitioner has filed instant petition under Section 483 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail in FIR No.168 dated 17.05.2024 under Sections 376 (2) (n) and 506 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act registered at Police Station Tehsil Camp, District Panipat. 2. Facts of the case are complainant ‘AK’ filed written complaint that earlier she was married to Joginder whom she left and started living with Manish. She lived with Manish for 12 years along with her daughter i.e. victim ‘NK’ aged about 14 years from previous marriage. Thereafter, Manish started keeping bad eye on her daughter in April, 2023. Her daughter was left with her sister and she was to bring her back in the evening. In her absence, Manish took his daughter to Delhi. She tried to contact him but he SANDEEP KUMAR 2025.07.10 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----8593 8593 8593 8593----2025 2025 2025 2025 ----2222---- did not pick up the phone. She started residing in a rented house near her family. Now her daughter disclosed that Manish had done wrongful act with her in Delhi as well as at home. Ultimately, the matter was reported to the police. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that allegations levelled against him are false. There is long delay in lodging the FIR. No valid explanation has been given. Statement of the alleged victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is Annexure P-2. His regular bail application was wrongly declined by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat vide order dated 05.12.2024 (Annexure P-3). Statements of both material witnesses have been recorded i.e. mother of the victim - PW1 (Annexure P-4) and victim herself as PW2 (Annexure P-5). Petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for indefinite time period. He is ready to abide by the terms and conditions of bail order. Therefore, his regular bail application may be allowed. 4. Bail application is opposed by learned counsel representing State. Detailed status report has been filed. There are serious allegations against the petitioner which are duly supported by victim when her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Annexure R-1) as well as when she stepped into the witness box as PW2. Statements of the mother and the victim are also annexed with the status report as Annexures R-5 and R-6. Considering the gravity of offence, petitioner is not entitled to be released on regular bail. SANDEEP KUMAR 2025.07.10 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----8593 8593 8593 8593----2025 2025 2025 2025 ----3333---- 5. I have considered the arguments and have gone through the record. As per the statement of victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she is a young girl of 14 years of age whereas petitioner is 37 years of age as per the memo of parties. As per the facts narrated in the FIR, mother of the victim was residing with the petitioner when he started keeping bad eye on the victim who was daughter of the complainant from previous marriage. There are specific serious allegations against the petitioner. Complainant as well as victim confirmed the allegations detailed in the FIR. Considering the aforesaid factual position and the gravity of offence, I do not find a fit case for grant of regular bail and the bail application is accordingly declined. 6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly as well. (AMARJOT BHATTI) (AMARJOT BHATTI) (AMARJOT BHATTI) (AMARJOT BHATTI) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE 07.07.2025 07.07.2025 07.07.2025 07.07.2025 snd Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No. Whether reportable : Yes/No SANDEEP KUMAR 2025.07.10 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document