CRM-M-25099-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 217 CRM-M-25099-2026 Date of decision: 07.07.2026 Aas Mohammad @ Ashu ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY Present : Mr. Pradeep Panwar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Armaan Dahiya, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Sandeep Berwal, Advocate for respondent No.2. ***** AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J.(ORAL) 1. By virtue of the present petition under Section 483 BNSS, petitioner, an accused in case bearing FIR No.284 dated 25.05.2024 registered against him, for commission of offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 96 BNS and Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 at Police Station City Gharaunda, District Karnal, has prayed for grant of bail. 2. Facts necessary for disposal of this petition have been taken from para 2 of the Status report dated 03.07.2026 filed by way of affidavit of Mr. Manoj Kumar, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gharaunda, District Karnal. The same is reproduced as under:- “That at the very outset, it is submitted that on 25.05.2025, a complaint was received in police station, where it was alleged by complainant ‘S’ (name withheld and to be referred to as ‘S’ or complainant/father of victim hereinafter) that his daughter ‘SH’ (name withheld and to be referred to as ‘SH’ or victim hereinafter), aged 16 years, is missing since 9.45 p.m. on 24.05.2024. He has suspicion that Aash Mohammad @ Ashu HAMANT 2026.07.09 17:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-25099-2026 2 son of Rahishu, resident of Jhinjhana has enticed her away. A prayer was made for tracing out his daughter. On the said complaint FIR No.284 dated 25.05.2024 under section 363/366-A of IPC was registered in Police Station Gharaunda, District Karnal.” During the course of investigation, Investigating Officer visited the site, prepared the site plan and recorded the statement of various witnesses. On 27.06.2024, the Victim girl was recovered from Jaipur. She was got medico legally examined, when the Doctor opined as follows:- “final opinion will be given after expert gynecologist opinion and DNA report.” She was produced before the learned Illaqa Magistrate for getting her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. (Section 183 BNSS), wherein she stated that she accompanied petitioner of her own free will as also that petitioner has not committed any wrong with her. She also expressed her desire to stay with him. The ‘Ultra Sound’ test of the Victim revealed that she was pregnant. Accordingly, Section 6 of POCSO Act was added. On the following day i.e. 29.06.2024, petitioner was arrested, who during the course of interrogation confessed to his involvement in the commission of offence. He was also got medico legally examined. The sealed parcels handed over by the Doctor after the examination of the Victim and petitioner were handed over to the IO for being deposited to the FSL. Scaled site plan was also got prepared. School leaving certificate of the Victim was collected from the school last attended by her. Documents HAMANT 2026.07.09 17:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-25099-2026 3 maintained by the school indicated that she was born on 06.08.2008, thus on the day, the incident occurred she was a minor. During the course of further investigation, DNA examination (STR analyses) result was received. The same reads as under:- “The DNA examination (STR analyses) conducted on the above mentioned exhibits is sufficient to conclude that the Abortus (item no.2) is the biological product of the accused (item no.3/4) and the victim (item no.1). Hence, the accused (item no.3/4) is the biological father and the victim (item no.1) is the biological mother of the Abortus (item no.2).” Statements of witnesses were recorded. Culmination of investigation resulted in filing of challan. 3. Petitioner moved an application for grant of bail before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court, POCSO, Karnal. The same came to be dismissed vide order dated 10.04.2026. Aggrieved of which, the present petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner, a young boy aged about 23 years with clean past antecedents, has been falsely implicated in the present case. In fact petitioner and Victim were in long standing ‘consensual’ relationship. Since they belonged to different communities, this relationship was not approved by the father of the Victim. The young girl was being harassed by her parents. She found an emotional anchor in petitioner and thus left the parental home with him of her own accord. In this context, the statement u/s 183 BNSS made by the Victim before the learned Magistrate, copy of which is appended as Annexure P-2, has also been referred to by learned counsel. HAMANT 2026.07.09 17:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-25099-2026 4 Most importantly, while appearing in the witness box as PW-1, she did not support the case of the prosecution, after she was declared ‘Hostile’ and was subjected to rigorous cross examination, nothing fruitful could be elicited therefrom to substantiate the case of prosecution. Learned counsel next contends that in the wake of star witnesses of the prosecution story having been already examined, further incarceration of petitioner is uncalled for, moreso when the likelihood of completion of trial in the near future is quite remote, for out of 21 prosecution witnesses, only 03 have been examined till date, thus the same would be violative of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Prayer for allowing the petition has been made. 5. Mr. Sandeep Berwal, Advocate has filed his power of attorney to represent respondent No.2/complainant, which is taken on record. No meaningful arguments were advanced by learned counsel for the complainant-Victim, apart from submitting that the matter has been amicably settled between the petitioner and the family of the Victim. However, learned State counsel, while opposing the request for grant of bail, contends that the scientific evidence conclusively points towards the guilt of the accused as the DNA examination revealed that the ‘Foetus’ which was got aborted was that of the petitioner. Nonetheless, it has been admitted by learned State counsel that neither the Victim, while appearing in the witness box, nor her father supported the case of the prosecution. Dismissal of the petition has been prayed for. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. HAMANT 2026.07.09 17:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-25099-2026 5 7. It is settled that grant or refusal of bail is the discretion of the Court. Factors to be kept in mind while granting the concession of bail have been discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in several cases. The essence being that while exercising powers under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (Pari materia to Section 483 of BNSS), the Court has to take into consideration various para meters including the nature of the charge, evidence, seriousness and gravity of offence, punishments to be awarded to a person, if he is convicted, his past antecedents etc. Thus, there can be no straight jacket formula for exercising the discretion and each case has to be examined on its peculiar facts. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 49; held as under:- "14) 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 can be 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. 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 un- convicted 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 the Constitution that any person HAMANT 2026.07.09 17:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-25099-2026 6 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. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of a refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any Court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an un-convicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson." Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, elaborated upon the factors to be kept in mind while deciding bail and reiterated that a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. Hon'ble Apex Court further held that while considering prayer for grant of bail, it is important to ascertain whether the accused was participating in the investigations to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and was not absconding or not appearing when required by the investigating officer. Hon'ble Apex Court further held that if an accused is not hiding from the investigating officer or is hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear of being victimized, it would be a factor that a judge would need to consider in an appropriate case. 8. In view of the settled proposition of law as referred above and considering the fact that star witnesses of the prosecution story have been examined, but without adverting to the merits of the case, lest it may HAMANT 2026.07.09 17:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-25099-2026 7 prejudice the trial, this Court is of the opinion that petitioner, whose past antecedents are clean and who has been in custody since 29.06.2024, deserves to be extended the concession of bail as his (P) further incarceration would not only be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, including right to speedy trial. 9. Resultantly, petitioner is granted the concession of bail subject to his furnishing bail/surety to the satisfaction of the learned Duty Magistrate/trial Court concerned. The petitioner shall abide by the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial Court and shall deposit the passport in the trial Court. (ii) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (iii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iv) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific order of Court. (v) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which, she is an accused, or for commission of which he is suspected of. (vi) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coerce, induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner. (vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse his liberty. (viii) The petitioner shall furnish his address and mobile number to the Trial Court forthwith and shall not change the same till the conclusion of the trial and in case for any reason, the petitioner seeks to change any of the aforesaid, the same shall be done only with prior intimation to the learned Trial Court, stating the reason for the same. HAMANT 2026.07.09 17:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-25099-2026 8 (ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other condition, as deemed appropriate while releasing the petitioner. 10. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and it is made clear that in case there is any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as granted to the petitioner by this order. 11. In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of the aforesaid observations. (AARADHNA SAWHNEY) JUDGE 07.07.2026 Hemant Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No HAMANT 2026.07.09 17:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document