CRM-M-24355-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 236 CRM-M-24355-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 09.07.2026 Himanshu ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Tushar Gautam, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) 1. Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 55 dated 03.02.2023, registered under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC ad Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 at Police Station Palam Vihar, District Gurugram. 2. The aforementioned FIR was initially registered under Section 363 of IPC on the basis of a written complaint submitted by complainant Shalendri alleging therein that her daughter ‘A’ (name withheld), who was 15 years of age, had gone somewhere without informing her and had not returned. By alleging that her daughter might have been kidnapped by someone, the complainant prayed for taking action in the matter. 3. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. During investigation, the daughter of the complainant, i.e. victim MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.09 12:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-24355-2026 (O&M) -2- ‘A’, was recovered from Bangla Sahib, Delhi. Her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. She was medico-legally examined. The present petitioner was joined into investigation on 07.02.2023. His medical examination was also conducted. The blood samples of the petitioner were taken and sent for DNA profiling. As per the DNA report, the semen detected on the undergarments of the victim matched with the DNA profiling of the present petitioner. The statements of the victim and the complainant were recorded after joining them into investigation. Offences under Section 366 of IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act were added. The petitioner was arrested on 10.06.2024. Investigation now stands concluded. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. As per the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., she had not levelled any allegations of her being subjected to penetrative sexual assault by the present petitioner. She has now been examined as a witness but has not supported the prosecution version by stating that the petitioner had not committed any act of rape/penetrative sexual assault upon her. Mere detection of semen on the clothing of the victim cannot be stated to be conclusive in nature to connect him with the commission of subject offences. The petitioner has been in custody for a period over two years. The trial will take considerable time to conclude as only 03 out of total 21 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. His antecedents are clean. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner deserves to be released on regular bail. MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.09 12:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-24355-2026 (O&M) -3- 5. Status report and the custody certificate of the petitioner have been filed by the respondent-State. It is submitted by learned State counsel that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature as he had subjected the victim, who was a minor girl, to the act of penetrative sexual assault. The consent of the victim does not matter. There are chances of the petitioner’s absconding, if released on bail. Hence, it is urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. This Court has heard the rival submissions. 7. The petitioner is alleged to have kidnapped the victim and to have subjected her to penetrative sexual assault. The victim has not supported the version of the prosecution either in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. or in her sworn deposition with regard to her being subject to penetrative sexual assault by the petitioner. The petitioner has been in custody for the last about two years and one month. The conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time as most of the prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined. It is a matter of trial as to whether on the basis of the DNA report, the guilt of the petitioner stands established or not? In the peculiar circumstances of the case, the continued detention of the petitioner is not going to serve any useful purpose. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody anymore. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. However, it will be open for the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail in case the MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.09 12:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-24355-2026 (O&M) -4- petitioner is found involved in any other subsequent case. 8. It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. 09.07.2026 (MANISHA BATRA) Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.09 12:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document