CRM-M IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT 112 JASVEE STATE OF CORAM: HON'BLE Present: KIRTI SINGH Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short regular bail to Section 9 and offen Sections 3 Sector 8, District 2. M-71322-2025 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM Date of Decision: ER @ JASVIR @ JASBIR JOG Versus STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Mr. Vikram Rana, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Ms. Saumya Ahluwalia, Seni 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. 96 & 137(2) of BNS, 2023 (late nce under Section 140(3)(2) of B 3, 33, 89 of the SC/ST Act were District Faridabad. The contents of the FIR are reproduced below: “To Chowki Incharge, Police Chowki Sector 11, Faridabad Subject Complaint regarding kidnapping of minor girl from Dalit community. Sir, it is submitted that I, House Number 9, Milhard Colony, Faridabad. I have 3 children, them 2 are boys and one is a girl. My daughter 30-11-2008, who studied in Government Girls Senior Secondary School Number 1, in Group 01, Class 9th. I belong to the Dalit community, Jatav caste. On 18-05-2025, at about 4:00 AM at night, she went missing from home. We searched around for neighbour Jasvir Jogi, son of Rajesh Jogi, has kidnapped my daughter xxxx with the intention of marriage or any forced crime. After missing on 18-05-2025, today I was searching for her. Please register a case, take strict action, and recover IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-71322-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 11.05.2026 GI ......Petitioner Versus ...Respondent MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH , Advocate for the petitioner(s). ior DAG, 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.184 dated 22.05.2025, under er on Section 96 BNS was dele BNS and Section 6 of POCSO A added), registered at Police Station reproduced below:- To Chowki Incharge, Police Chowki Sector 11, Faridabad Subject Complaint regarding kidnapping of minor girl from Dalit community. Sir, it is submitted that I, xxxx W/O Shri Ramesh, resident of House Number 9, Milhard Colony, Faridabad. I have 3 children, out of them 2 are boys and one is a girl. My daughter xxxx whose date of birth is 2008, who studied in Government Girls Senior Secondary School Number 1, in Group 01, Class 9th. I belong to the Dalit community, Jatav 4:00 AM at night, she went missing from home. We searched around for xxxxx but we could not find her. My neighbour Jasvir Jogi, son of Rajesh Jogi, has kidnapped my daughter with the intention of marriage or any forced crime. After xxxx went 2025, today I was searching for her. Please register a case, take strict action, and recover xxx. Thank you, SD xxx” ......Petitioner ...Respondent Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 of or grant of , under eted Act, registered at Police Station To Chowki Incharge, Police Chowki Sector 11, Faridabad Subject Complaint regarding kidnapping of minor girl from Dalit W/O Shri Ramesh, resident of out of whose date of birth is 2008, who studied in Government Girls Senior Secondary School Number 1, in Group 01, Class 9th. I belong to the Dalit community, Jatav 4:00 AM at night, she went missing from but we could not find her. My neighbour Jasvir Jogi, son of Rajesh Jogi, has kidnapped my daughter went 2025, today I was searching for her. Please register a SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.05.11 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M 3. petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present registered prosecutrix pretext of age of wh other. Be the prosec the prosec done volu to solem allegations any cogent evidence on record. examined before the learned Trial Court now 23-year months and 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 custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone an actual custody of submits that t of 24 prosecution witnesses, M-71322-2025 (O&M) -2- Learned counsel for the petitioner petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present registered after a delay of 4 days on the prosecutrix, alleging that the petitioner f marriage. It is submitted that hom is a disputed question of fact that as it may, the petitioner had cutrix to leave her home, which cutrix in her statement recorded untarily, apprehending threat from mnize her marriage somewhere allegations levelled against the petitioner nt evidence on record. Moreover examined before the learned Trial Court. year-old petitioner has already undergone an actual custody of and 12 days. There is no other case registered against him. 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 11 months and 12 days. Investigation is complete. submits that the charges have been framed prosecution witnesses, 05 have been examined. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present FIR, which was in f on the statement of the mother of the had enticed her daughter on It is submitted that the petitioner and the prosecutrix is a disputed question of fact, were well-acquainted with e d neither pressurized nor influen h, as per the categoric admission d under Section 183 BNSS, she h m her family members who wan e else. It is submitted that the against the petitioner remain unsubstantiated by way of r, even the material witnesses stand . Learned counsel submits that petitioner has already undergone an actual custody of There is no other case registered against him. learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. She, 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 taken on record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone an . Investigation is complete. She also framed on 11.11.2025 and out of a total been examined. submits that the fact of the the the petitioner and the prosecutrix, ach ced n of had nted It is submitted that the remain unsubstantiated by way of stand the petitioner has already undergone an actual custody of 11 vehemently opposed the , upon that the Learned has filed custody certificate in Court today and the same is taken on record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone an also out of a total SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.05.11 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M 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 consideration the nature of the offence, severity of the punishment and material on record. 8. charges in the present case out of 24 proceedings, thus, indicates that the conclusion of trial is not imminent. The M-71322-2025 (O&M) -3- 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 "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 preven 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 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 deman 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 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 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 involv material on record. Reverting to the case in hand, charges in the present case came to be framed on cited prosecution witnesses have proceedings, thus, indicates that the conclusion of trial is not imminent. The 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. , relevant 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 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 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 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 involvement of the accused and the Reverting to the case in hand, it is borne out of the record that came to be framed on 11.11.2025. Yet, only ve been examined. The pace of the proceedings, thus, indicates that the conclusion of trial is not imminent. The 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 more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after 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. ds that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty 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 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 evidence, must take into consideration the nature of the offence, severity of ement of the accused and the it is borne out of the record that only 05 been examined. The pace of the proceedings, thus, indicates that the conclusion of trial is not imminent. The SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.05.11 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M petitioner has already remained in actual custody for a period of and 12 days 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 balanced consideration of the nature of acc 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 examined. 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 pace of the proceedin 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 ensu 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 reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Uttar Pradesh and another (2018) 3 SCC 22. M-71322-2025 (O&M) -4- petitioner has already remained in actual custody for a period of days. While the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegat 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 poses a flight risk or that his release would impede the fair conduct of the trial, particularly when the material witnesses stand examined. Therefore, upon taking into account all 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 proceedin 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-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 reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Uttar Pradesh and another (2018) 3 SCC 22. petitioner has already remained in actual custody for a period of 11 month 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 parameters governing the grant of bail necessitate a balanced consideration usation, 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 witnesses stand Therefore, upon taking into account all the considerations stated 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 proceedin 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, 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 Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2018) 3 SCC 22. months ions 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 usation, 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 witnesses stand the considerations stated 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 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, 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 is the exception’, as Dataram Singh vs. State of SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.05.11 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M 11. case, lest it may prejudice the trial, the present pet 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. conditions 12. prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application for ca 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 petition. M-71322-2025 (O&M) -5- Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice the trial, the present pet 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 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 the offence of which he is accused of, or for commis 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 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 ca 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 ly for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail petition. ithout 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 The petitioner shall also abide by the following 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 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 ly for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail petition. ithout commenting anything on the merits of the ition 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 The petitioner shall also abide by the following 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 sion 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 In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the ncellation of bail 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 SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.05.11 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M 14. disposed of. May 11, 202 SwarnjitS M-71322-2025 (O&M) -6- Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. , 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whethe reportable Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands (KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.05.11 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document