CRM-M- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT (207) NISHAN SINGH STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON'BLE Present: KIRTI SINGH 1. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short regular bail to Sections 1 POCSO A Taran. 2. -7558-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM Date of Decision: NISHAN SINGH Versus STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Mr. P.B.S. Goraya, Advocate, Mr. P.P.S. Mahl, Advocate and Mr. S.P.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Ms. Aakanksha Gupta, AAG, **** 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(2), 96, 87, 64 and 3(5) of BNS, 2023 Act, registered at Police Station The contents of the FIR are reproduced below: “ Statement of Tehal Sin village Kot Jaspat District Tarn Taran aged 49 years mobile no.82840xxxxx. Stated that I am resident of above mentioned address and ply E- battery rickshaw at Tarn Taran City. I have 3 daughters namely eldest is xxxxx, younger to her xxx xxxx and xxxx are studying at Mata Ganga Government School, Girls, Tarn Taran whereas my youngest daughter school only. On dated 04.11.2024 as per routine, my both daughters and xxxx came to school with me on my battery rickshaw and around 3:20 PM I took them back to my house from school. Then around 5:15 PM my daughter zxxxx who is aged 16 years went IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-7558-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 30.04.2026 ......Petitioner Versus .....Respondent MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Mr. P.B.S. Goraya, Advocate, Mr. P.P.S. Mahl, Advocate and Mr. S.P.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner(s). , Punjab. 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.206 dated 5.11.2024, under of BNS, 2023 and Sections 6 and 8 registered at Police Station Sadar, Tarn Taran, District Ta reproduced below:- Statement of Tehal Singh son of Harbhajan Singh r/o village Kot Jaspat District Tarn Taran aged 49 years mobile . Stated that I am resident of above mentioned address and battery rickshaw at Tarn Taran City. I have 3 daughters namely xxx and youngest is xxxx: My 2 daughters are studying at Mata Ganga Government School, Girls, Tarn Taran whereas my youngest daughter xxxxx is studying in the village ted 04.11.2024 as per routine, my both daughters x came to school with me on my battery rickshaw and around 3:20 PM I took them back to my house from school. Then around 5:15 PM my who is aged 16 years went to village shop to buy something ......Petitioner .....Respondent Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 of or grant of , under 8 of aran gh son of Harbhajan Singh r/o village Kot Jaspat District Tarn Taran aged 49 years mobile . Stated that I am resident of above mentioned address and battery rickshaw at Tarn Taran City. I have 3 daughters namely : My 2 daughters are studying at Mata Ganga Government School, Girls, is studying in the village xxxx came to school with me on my battery rickshaw and around 3:20 PM I took them back to my house from school. Then around 5:15 PM my to village shop to buy something SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.04.30 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 3. petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case made by the away his well acquainted there is no cogent and reliable ev allegations level had left h that the pr not even Petitioner year old petitioner has already undergone an actual custody of months and 4. submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitio instructions commission of the offence. certificate in Court today and the same certificate, the petitioner has undergone an actual custody of -7558-2026 (O&M) -2- but did not return back and we started searching for her in our neighbourhood but we could not find co-villager Nishan Singh son of Manjit Singh r/o Kot Jaspat in connivance with Nishan Singh son of Sukhdev Singh r/o Kot Jaspat have allured my daughter on the pretext of marriage and have taken her away somewhere. Till today, we kept searching for our daughter could not find her. We are fully sure that Nishan S have enticed our daughter zxxxxx taken against them and search be conducted to find my daughter Learned counsel for the petitioner petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case made by the father of the prosecutrix, alleging that the petitioner had daughter. It is submitted that the age of the prosecutrix acquainted with the petitioner, is a disputed question of fact. no cogent and reliable evidence allegations levelled against the petitioner her home under influence of the rosecutrix, who stands examined supported the case of the prosecution Petitioner in this regard is placed on Ann year old petitioner has already undergone an actual custody of months and 19 days. Per contra, learned State counsel submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitio instructions, states that the petitioner was actively involved in the commission of the offence. Learned State counsel certificate in Court today and the same is certificate, the petitioner has undergone an actual custody of but did not return back and we started searching for her in our neighbourhood but we could not find her. Today I came to know that our villager Nishan Singh son of Manjit Singh r/o Kot Jaspat in connivance ngh son of Sukhdev Singh r/o Kot Jaspat have allured my daughter on the pretext of marriage and have taken her away somewhere. Till today, we kept searching for our daughter xxxxx on our own but we could not find her. We are fully sure that Nishan Singh and Jatinder Singh x to some place. Kindly legal action be taken against them and search be conducted to find my daughter.” Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case, on the statement alleging that the petitioner had enticed the age of the prosecutrix, who w is a disputed question of fact. Moreover idence on record to corroborate the ed against the petitioner, or to suggest that the prosecutrix petitioner. It is further pointed examined before the learned Trial Court, supported the case of the prosecution and has turned hostile nexure P-1. It is submitted that year old petitioner has already undergone an actual custody of 01 year, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. She, upon that the petitioner was actively involved in the Learned State counsel has filed custody is taken on record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone an actual custody of 01 year, but did not return back and we started searching for her in our her. Today I came to know that our villager Nishan Singh son of Manjit Singh r/o Kot Jaspat in connivance ngh son of Sukhdev Singh r/o Kot Jaspat have allured my daughter on the pretext of marriage and have taken her away somewhere. on our own but we ingh and Jatinder Singh to some place. Kindly legal action be submits that the statement enticed was Moreover, on record to corroborate the the prosecutrix out has turned hostile. It is submitted that 29 03 vehemently opposed the , upon that the petitioner was actively involved in the has filed custody taken on record. As per custody 03 SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.04.30 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- months and charges have been witnesses, against th 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. -7558-2026 (O&M) -3- months and 19 days. Investigation is complete. have been framed on 23.04.2025 s, 03 have been examined. The he petitioner, and he has been gra 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 thu "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 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 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 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 ensh 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 l 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 involv material on record. Reverting to the case in hand, it is borne out from the record . Investigation is complete. She also submits that t and out of a total of 19 prosecution ere are two other cases registe anted regular bail in one of them. 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 earliest 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 . Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that tion, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. 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 demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, 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 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 from the record submits that the prosecution ered . 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 earliest 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 . Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that tion, and that every man is deemed to be 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 demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, In this country, it would be quite contrary to rined 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 eft at liberty, 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 Reverting to the case in hand, it is borne out from the record SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.04.30 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- that charges came to be framed on prosecution witnesses ha thus, indicates that the conclusion of trial is not imminent. The petitioner has already remained in actual custody for a period of days. 9. petitioner is 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 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 justice. -7558-2026 (O&M) -4- at charges came to be framed on 23.04 prosecution witnesses have been examined. The pace of the proceedings, thus, indicates that the conclusion of trial is not imminent. The petitioner has already remained in actual custody for a period of As regards the submission of learned State counsel that petitioner is facing trial in two more criminal case Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Ras 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 application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the r 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 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 4.2025. Yet, only 03 out of 19 cited been examined. The pace of the proceedings, thus, indicates that the conclusion of trial is not imminent. The petitioner has already remained in actual custody for a period of 01 year, 03 months and s regards the submission of learned State counsel that more criminal cases, 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 application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the r is involved in other case(s). The relevant portion of the said As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. s 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 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 cited been examined. The pace of the proceedings, thus, indicates that the conclusion of trial is not imminent. The petitioner has months and 19 s regards the submission of learned State counsel that , it has been held by the hadi 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 application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the r is involved in other case(s). The relevant portion of the said As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. s 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 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 SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.04.30 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 11. the petitioner poses a flight risk or that h conduct of the trial. Moreover, it is course of prosecution version and probative value of such testimony is a matter for appreciation at the final adjudic any conclusive evaluation thereof, this factum cannot be overlooked. Therefore, upon taking into account all the hereinbefore, and without expressing an opini lest it may prejudice the trial, this Court is of the detention of the petitioner, in the backdrop of the and the substantial period of incarceration already advance the cause of justice. The guarantee of 21 of the Constitution of India, which includes obliges the Court to ensure that pre punitive character. trial being concluded in the near future, would also run 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 is ordered to be released on regular bail on his f -7558-2026 (O&M) -5- Presently, no material has been placed on record to suggest that the petitioner poses a flight risk or that h conduct of the trial. Moreover, it is noted that the course of her examination before the trial Court, did not support the prosecution version and has been declared hostile. While it is settled that probative value of such testimony is a matter for appreciation at the final adjudication of the case, yet, even while refraining from any conclusive evaluation thereof, this factum cannot be overlooked. Therefore, upon taking into account all the hereinbefore, and without expressing an opini lest it may prejudice the trial, this Court is of the detention of the petitioner, in the backdrop of the and the substantial period of incarceration already advance the cause of justice. The guarantee of 21 of the Constitution of India, which includes obliges the Court to ensure that pre-trial punitive character. The prolonged incarceration, trial being concluded in the near future, would also run 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 is ordered to be released on regular bail on his f Presently, no material has been placed on record to suggest that the petitioner poses a flight risk or that her release would impede the fair noted that the prosecutrix, during examination before the trial Court, did not support the been declared hostile. While it is settled that probative value of such testimony is a matter for appreciation at the stage of ation of the case, yet, even while refraining from entering into any conclusive evaluation thereof, this factum cannot be completely overlooked. Therefore, upon taking into account all the considerations stated hereinbefore, 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 n 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 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. Without 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 Presently, no material has been placed on record to suggest that release would impede the fair the examination before the trial Court, did not support the the stage of entering into completely considerations stated the merits of the case opinion that the continued pace of the proceedings undergone, would not personal liberty under Article the right to a speedy trial, ot assume a without the prospect of the contrary to the settled legal principle that ‘bail is the rule and jail is the exception’, as Singh vs. 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 urnishing adequate bail/surety SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.04.30 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. 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 th 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. April 30, 202 SwarnjitS -7558-2026 (O&M) -6- 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 commission of which he is suspected. (v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise t 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 before this Court. However, nothing stated above shall be construed as a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case and th 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 disposed of. , 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whethe reportable 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 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. t 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. h 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 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 bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned learned trial Court/Duty The petitioner will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on the date t 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 o 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 h 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 e trial Court would proceed independently of the observations made in the present case which Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.04.30 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document