CRM-M IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT (217) SATYA KUMAR STATE OF CORAM: HON'BLE Present: KIRTI SINGH 1. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short regular bail to Sections presented 64(2), 65 1860), registered at Police Station 2. M-20527-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM Date of Decision: SATYA KUMAR Versus OF HARYANA CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Mr. Punit Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Anmol Malik, AAG, Har Mr. Manish Dhankhar, Advo **** 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. 127(6) of BNS, 2023 (Section d under Section 6 of POCSO A 5(1) of BNS, 2023 (Sections 3 registered at Police Station Sector 1 The contents of the FIR are reproduced below: “To, The Station House Officer, Police Station Sector Sir. It is submitted that I, Sanjay Dubey, son of Rajender Dubey, resident of Village Navtan Dubey Tolla, Police Station Marhovara, District Chappra, Saran Vihar, presently residing at House No 73, Gali No an auto 2, Shakti Park, Gurugram. I work as driver. I have two sons and one daughter namely xxxx, aged about 16 years and she has taken the exams of 10th grade. On 14.04.2025 at about 10 AM, my daughter left the house without informing anyone and while leaving the house along with some gold items. My daughter i 4 feet 6 inches tall, slim body, long face and a cut mark on left check. While leaving she was wearing white frock and sandals. I was searching for her a at my own level but could not find her. Request to scribe a IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-20527-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 22.04.2026 ......Petitioner Versus .....Respondent MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH for the petitioner. ryana. ocate, for the complainant. 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.238 dated 15.04.2025, under 346 IPC 1860), (later on chal Act, 2012 and 127(4), 137(2), 344, 363, 366,376(2), 376(3) IP 10, Gurugram, Haryana. reproduced below:- To, The Station House Officer, Police Station Sector y Dubey, son of Rajender Dubey, resident of Village Navtan Dubey Tolla, Police Station Marhovara, District Chappra, Saran Vihar, presently residing at House No 73, Gali No an auto 2, Shakti Park, Gurugram. I work as driver. I have two sons and one daughter , aged about 16 years and she has taken the exams of 10th grade. On 14.04.2025 at about 10 AM, my daughter left the house without informing anyone and while leaving the house she took around Rs 60000/ along with some gold items. My daughter is of wheatish complexion, about 4 feet 6 inches tall, slim body, long face and a cut mark on left check. While leaving she was wearing white frock and sandals. I was searching for her a at my own level but could not find her. Request to scribe a ......Petitioner .....Respondent Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 of or grant of , under llan 87, PC, To, The Station House Officer, Police Station Sector-10, y Dubey, son of Rajender Dubey, resident of Village Navtan Dubey Tolla, Police Station Marhovara, District Chappra, Saran Vihar, presently residing at House No 73, Gali No an auto 2, Shakti Park, Gurugram. I work as driver. I have two sons and one daughter , aged about 16 years and she has taken the exams of 10th grade. On 14.04.2025 at about 10 AM, my daughter left the house without she took around Rs 60000/- s of wheatish complexion, about 4 feet 6 inches tall, slim body, long face and a cut mark on left check. While leaving she was wearing white frock and sandals. I was searching for her a at my own level but could not find her. Request to scribe a SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.04.22 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M 3. petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case lodged as prosecutri disputed q house on the petitioner 25.04.202 reliance o submitted that offences examined prosecutio petitioner has already undergone an actual custody of days. The 4. submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. instructions commission of the offence. certificate in Court today and the same certificate, the petitioner has undergone an actual custody of 09 days. Investigation is complete. been framed M-20527-2026 (O&M) -2- missing report of my daughter and she be searched. S/D Sanjay Dubey. Learned counsel for the petitioner petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case s a missing complaint, on the st ix. It is the foremost submission question of fact, and that she wa her own free will. It is submitt petitioner, the prosecutrix voluntarily 25. In support of this submiss on the marriage certificate anne submitted that there is no evidence on against the petitioner. Even th d before the learned Trial Court on and have turned hostile. petitioner has already undergone an actual custody of ere is no other case registered against Per contra, learned State counsel submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 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 . Investigation is complete. He also framed on 25.08.2025 and out of a total of port of my daughter and she be searched. S/D Sanjay Dubey.” Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case which was initia tatement made by the father of that the age of the prosecutrix is as in fact a major when she left ted that being well acquainted with voluntarily solemnized marriage with him sion, learned counsel has plac exed at Annexure P-2. It is furt n record to establish the alleg he material witnesses, who sta have not supported the case of It is submitted that 27 year old petitioner has already undergone an actual custody of 11 months and against him. learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He, 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 11 months and also submits that the charges have out of a total of 21 prosecution witnesses, ” submits that the ally the s of her with m on ced ther ged and the year old months and 09 vehemently opposed the , upon that the petitioner was actively involved in the has filed custody taken on record. As per custody months and have prosecution witnesses, 05 SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.04.22 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M have been examined. 5. behalf of learned counsel 6. parties. 7. observations passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40 8. bail, the Court, though not required to make a roving inquiry into the evidence, must take into consideration the nature of the off the punishment and material on record. 9. that charges came to be framed on M-20527-2026 (O&M) -3- been examined. Mr. Manish Dhankhar, Advo the complainant and has not di counsel for the petitioner. 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 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 in 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 li 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 off 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 25.08 ocate has filed his vakalatnama isputed the averments made by 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 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 8.2025. Yet, only 05 out of 21 cited on 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 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 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 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 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 berty, 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 ence, severity of , the involvement of the accused and the Reverting to the case in hand, it is borne out from the record cited SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.04.22 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M 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 has also b major, hav 10. against the pet 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 tri accused, and the likelihood of his absconding or influencing the course of justice. 11. the petitioner poses a flight risk or that h conduct of the trial. Moreover, it is complainant before the trial Court, did not support the declared hostile. While it is settled that is a matter for ap 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 M-20527-2026 (O&M) -4- 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 been submitted that the petition ve solemnized marriage. 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 balanced consideration of the nature of accusation, the stage of the tri 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 h conduct of the trial. Moreover, it is noted that complainant and the prosecutrix, during before the trial Court, did not support the 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 conclusive evaluation thereof, this factum cannot be completely overlooked. Therefore, upon taking into account all the considerations stated herei opinion on 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 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 11 months and 09 days oner and the prosecutrix, both be hile the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations levelled itioner, 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 her release would impede the fair noted that the material witnesses i.e. the during the course of their examination 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 is opinion that the continued detention of the petitioner, in the backdrop pace of the proceedings and the substantial period of incarceration been examined. The pace of the proceedings, thus, indicates that the conclusion of trial is not imminent. The petitioner has days. It eing hile the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations levelled itioner, 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 al, 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 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 nbefore, 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 incarceration SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.04.22 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M 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 incarceration d incarceration, future, would also run rule and jail is the exception’, in Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2018) 3 SCC 22. 12. may prejudice the trial, the present petition is allo 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. 13. prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court. M-20527-2026 (O&M) -5- 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 concluded in the near future, would also run contrary to the settled legal principle that ‘bail is the rule and jail is the exception’, as reaffirmed 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 allo 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 commission of which he is suspected. (v) The petitioner shall not directly or 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 before this Court. 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 ot assume a punitive character. The prolonged without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near 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:- titioner 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 ed, 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 undergone, would not advance the cause of justice. The guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which includes trial The prolonged without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near contrary to the settled legal principle that ‘bail is the 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 wed 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 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 offence of which he is accused of, or for commission of 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 prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.04.22 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M 14. 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 pres 15. disposed of. April 22, 202 SwarnjitS M-20527-2026 (O&M) -6- 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 pres Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. , 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whethe reportable 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 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 Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.04.22 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document