CRM-M IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT (214) AJAY SINGH STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON'BLE Present: KIRTI SINGH 1. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short regular bail to Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1), 127(3) of BNS and registered at Police Station 2. M-25942-2026(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM Date of Decision: AJAY SINGH Versus STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate, Ms. Aakanksha Gupta, AAG, Punjab. **** 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), 87, 65(1), 127(3) of BNS and registered at Police Station Islamabad, Amritsar City The contents of the FIR are reproduced below: “"Statement of Malkiat Singh son of Bachana Singh resident of House No. 265, Gali No.9, Indira Colo aged about 42 years, Mobile No. 62846 of the above address and I am working as a Raj Mistri. My marriage took place about 18 years ago with xxxx Gurdaspur and out of of Batala, District the wedlock three children were born, out of which my eldest daughter is 09.06.2009 and is aged about 15 years and 11 months, younger to her is my son Sahil Singh aged about 14 years and my youngest is aged about 10 years. on a.m. in the 05.05.2025 at about 9.00 morning like every day I went for my work and my son Sahil and younger daughter xxxx had gone to School and my wife were at home. My wife xxxx at about 12.00 p.m. in the afternoon, went to the bathroom have bath and in the meantime my daughter informing and asking went away from the house and when my wife came out bathroom, she saw that inquiries regarding the girl near the house but could not find her and afterwards, my wife telephoned me that hearing this I returned home and searched IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-25942-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 13.05.2026 ......Petitioner Versus .....Respondent MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Advocate, for the petitioner. Aakanksha Gupta, AAG, 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.111 dated 07.05.2025, under 137(2), 87, 65(1), 127(3) of BNS and Section 6 of the POCSO Act Amritsar City, District Amritsar. reproduced below:- "Statement of Malkiat Singh son of Bachana Singh resident of House No. 265, Gali No.9, Indira Colony, Kot Khalsa, Amritsar aged about 42 years, Mobile No. 62846 xxxx. It is stated that I am resident of the above address and I am working as a Raj Mistri. My marriage took xxxx daughter of Rashpal Singh, resident d out of of Batala, District the wedlock three children were born, out of which my eldest daughter is xxxx, whose date of birth is 09.06.2009 and is aged about 15 years and 11 months, younger to her is my son Sahil Singh aged about 14 years and my youngest daughter xxxxx is aged about 10 years. on a.m. in the 05.05.2025 at about 9.00 morning like every day I went for my work and my son Sahil and younger daughter had gone to School and my wife xxxx and my elder daughter xxxx t about 12.00 p.m. in the afternoon, went to the bathroom have bath and in the meantime my daughter xxxxx without informing and asking went away from the house and when my wife xxxxxxx came out bathroom, she saw that xxx was not at the house and she made inquiries regarding the girl near the house but could not find her and afterwards, my wife telephoned me that xxxxx could not be found and after hearing this I returned home and searched xxxxx at my own level but could ......Petitioner .....Respondent Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 of or grant of , under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, "Statement of Malkiat Singh son of Bachana Singh ny, Kot Khalsa, Amritsar . It is stated that I am resident of the above address and I am working as a Raj Mistri. My marriage took daughter of Rashpal Singh, resident d out of of Batala, District the wedlock three children were , whose date of birth is 09.06.2009 and is aged about 15 years and 11 months, younger to her is xxxxx is aged about 10 years. on a.m. in the 05.05.2025 at about 9.00 morning like every day I went for my work and my son Sahil and younger daughter xxxx t about 12.00 p.m. in the afternoon, went to without xxxxxxx was not at the house and she made inquiries regarding the girl near the house but could not find her and could not be found and after at my own level but could SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.05.14 09:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M 3. now aged about 25 years, has been falsely implicate which was registered on the statement of the submitted that the allegatio pretext of marriage against the petitioner prosecutrix and her parents Court, have not supported the case of the prosecution hostile. Reliance in this regard is placed on copies of the respective testimonies annexed as Annexure P age of the prosecutrix is a disputed question of fact. has already undergone an actual custody no other case registered against him 4. submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. instructions actively involved in the commission of the offence. has filed custody certificate in Court today and the same As per custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone an actual custody of 10 months and charges have been M-25942-2026(O&M) -2- not find her, my and my family at our own level searched for the girl but could not find her. I have suspicion on Ajay son of Nikka resident of Gali No.9, Indira Colony, Kot Khalsa Amritsar and I am sure that he has enticed my daughter xxxxx and eloped have got statement recorded. Legal Singh action be aforesaid. my taken. LTI Malkiat Singh aforesaid” Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, aged about 25 years, has been falsely implicate which was registered on the statement of the submitted that the allegation of enticing away pretext of marriage, and even that of sexual assault he petitioner. Moreover, even the material witnesses prosecutrix and her parents, who stand examined have not supported the case of the prosecution Reliance in this regard is placed on copies of the respective testimonies annexed as Annexure P-2 to P age of the prosecutrix is a disputed question of fact. has already undergone an actual custody of no other case registered against him. Per contra, learned State counsel submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. instructions from ASI Bhagwinder Singh actively involved in the commission of the offence. has filed custody certificate in Court today and the same As per custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone an actual custody of months and 10 days. Investigation is complete. have been framed on 26.11.2025 t find her, my and my family at our own level searched for the girl xxxx but could not find her. I have suspicion on Ajay son of Nikka resident of Gali No.9, Indira Colony, Kot Khalsa Amritsar and I am sure that he has and eloped her with an intention to marry. I have got statement recorded. Legal Singh action be aforesaid. my taken. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, aged about 25 years, has been falsely implicated in the present FIR, which was registered on the statement of the father of the prosecutrix. It is n of enticing away the prosecutrix on the false , and even that of sexual assault, remain unfounded . Moreover, even the material witnesses i.e. who stand examined before the learned Trial have not supported the case of the prosecution and have turned Reliance in this regard is placed on copies of the respective 2 to P-4. It is submitted that even the age of the prosecutrix is a disputed question of fact. Moreover, the petitioner of 10 months and 10 days. There is learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. She, upon from ASI Bhagwinder Singh, states that the petitioner was actively involved in the commission of the offence. Learned State counsel has filed custody certificate in Court today and the same is taken on record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone an actual custody of . Investigation is complete. She also submits that t and out of a total of 22 prosecution xxxx but could not find her. I have suspicion on Ajay son of Nikka resident of Gali No.9, Indira Colony, Kot Khalsa Amritsar and I am sure that he has her with an intention to marry. I have got statement recorded. Legal Singh action be aforesaid. my taken. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, d in the present FIR, . It is false , remain unfounded i.e. the before the learned Trial and have turned Reliance in this regard is placed on copies of the respective even the petitioner . There is vehemently opposed the , upon that the petitioner was Learned State counsel taken on record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone an actual custody of submits that the prosecution SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.05.14 09:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M witnesses, 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 the punishment and material on record. 8. 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 M-25942-2026(O&M) -3- witnesses, 07 have been examined. 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 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, 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 enshrined 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 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 the punishment and prima facie, the involvement of the accused and the material on record. Reverting to the case in hand, it is borne out from the record at charges came to be framed on 26.11 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 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 punishment begins after conviction, 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 ds 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 11.2025. Yet, only 07 out of 22 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 10 months and 10 days. 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 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 ds 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 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 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 offence, severity of , the involvement of the accused and the Reverting to the case in hand, it is borne out from the record cited been examined. The pace of the proceedings, thus, indicates that the conclusion of trial is not imminent. The petitioner has . SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.05.14 09:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M 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 bal 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. 10. the petitioner poses a flight risk or that h conduct of the trial. Moreover, it is prosecutrix and her parents the trial Court, did not su declared hostile. While it is settled that is a matter for appreciation at the even while refraining from this factum cannot be account all the opinion on 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 the right to a speedy trial, obliges the Court to ensure that pre incarceration does n incarceration, M-25942-2026(O&M) -4- 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 bal 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 petitioner poses a flight risk or that h conduct of the trial. Moreover, it is noted that the material witnes prosecutrix and her parents, during the course of the trial Court, did not support the prosecution version and declared hostile. While it is settled that the probative value of such testimony is a matter for appreciation at the stage of final adjudication of the case, yet, even while refraining from entering into any conc 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 opinion that the continued detention of the petitioner, in the backdrop pace of the proceedings and the substantial period of incarceration 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 incarceration does not assume a punitive character. incarceration, without the prospect of the trial being conclud 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 petitioner poses a flight risk or that her release would impede the fair noted that the material witnesses i.e. the the course of their examination before prosecution version and have been the probative value of such testimony stage of final adjudication of the case, yet, entering into any conclusive evaluation thereof, completely overlooked. Therefore, upon taking into considerations stated hereinbefore, and without expressing an the merits of the case lest it may prejudice the trial, this Court opinion that the continued detention of the petitioner, in the backdrop pace of the proceedings and the substantial period of incarceration undergone, would not advance the cause of justice. The guarantee of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which includes the right to a speedy trial, obliges the Court to ensure that pre-trial ot assume a punitive character. The prolonged without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near 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 anced 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 release would impede the fair i.e. the examination before been the probative value of such testimony stage of final adjudication of the case, yet, lusive evaluation thereof, completely overlooked. Therefore, upon taking into considerations stated hereinbefore, and without expressing an the merits of the case lest it may prejudice the trial, this Court is opinion that the continued detention of the petitioner, in the backdrop pace of the proceedings and the substantial period of incarceration undergone, would not advance the cause of justice. The guarantee of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which includes trial The prolonged ed in the near SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.05.14 09:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M future, would also run rule and jail is the exception’, in Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2018) 3 SCC 22. 11. 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 con Magistrate. 12. prosecution shall be at liberty 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 are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail petition. M-25942-2026(O&M) -5- future, would also run contrary to the settled legal principle that ‘bail is the rule and jail is the exception’, as reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2018) 3 SCC 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 bonds to the satisfaction of the con 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 to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as 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 the trial Court would proceed independently of the observations made in are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail petition. contrary to the settled legal principle that ‘bail is the as reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2018) 3 SCC 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 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. The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the 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 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. contrary to the settled legal principle that ‘bail is the as reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2018) 3 SCC 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 cerned learned trial Court/Duty 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 is accused of, or for commission of The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted 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 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 the present case which SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.05.14 09:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M 14. disposed of. May 13, 202 SwarnjitS M-25942-2026(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 2026.05.14 09:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document