CRM-M-15376-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 279 CRM-M-15376-2026 Date of decision: 13.07.2026 Rattan ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY Present : Mr. Akshay Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gurdeep Singh, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Satish Saini, Advocate for respondent No.2. ***** AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J.(ORAL) 1. This is the second petition under Section 483 BNSS filed by petitioner, an accused in case bearing FIR No. 13 dated 20.02.2025 registered against him, for commission of offences punishable u/s 137(2), 96 BNS (Section 65(1) BNS added later on) and Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 at Police Station Moonak, District Sangrur, seeking the concession of bail. His first petition bearing CRM-M-50732-2025, seeking similar relief, was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 10.11.2025 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. 2. Relevant facts necessary for disposal of this petition are being taken from para 2 of the status report dated 10.05.2026 filed by way of affidavit of Mr. Rajesh Sanehi, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Moonak, District Sangrur. The same is reproduced as under:- “That pursuant to the said order, it is submitted that FIR No.0013 dated 20.02.2025, under Sections 137(2), 96 of BNS (and later on added Section 65(1) of BNS and Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 vide DDR No.28 dated 22.02.2025), Police Station Moonak, District Sangrur was registered against un- HAMANT 2026.07.15 19:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-15376-2026 2 known person on the basis of statement F of Geja Singh son of Mishra Singh resident of Salemgarh, P.S., Moonak, District Sangrur. Wherein he stated that, "I am resident of above said address and I am a driver by profession. I have two children. The elder son is Paramjit Singh and the younger daughter is XXXX. Who is aged about 14 years old. My daughter XXXX studies in class IX at Government Senior Secondary School Girls, Moonak. On dated 18.02.2025, my daughter XXXX came from our house at about 8.00 AM like every day to study in school at Moonak, but after sometime I came to know that my daughter XXXX did not reach the school, so I searched a lot for my daughter XXXX here and there, but I did not find my daughter XXXX anywhere. Regarding which I kept searching for XXXX among my relatives, but I could not find my daughter. Now I am completely convinced that some unknown person has allured my minor daughter XXXX and taken her away on the pretext of marriage. Strict legal action should be taken against the unknown person." On the basis of said statement of Geja Singh corroborated by Bhagat Singh, Ex. Sarpanch village Salemgarh, the present FIR was registered against unknown person.”. During the course of investigation, School Leaving Certificate of the missing ‘Victim’ was taken into possession from Principal, Govt. Senior Secondary (Girls) School, Moonak, wherein the Date of Birth of the ‘Victim’ is recorded as 01.01.2011, as per which, she was 14 years, 01 month and 17 days old and was thus a minor on the day of incident. On 20.02.2025, complainant i.e. the father of the minor ‘Victim’ made a supplementary statement pointing therein that one Jagvir Singh, son of Jarnail Singh, is involved in the kidnapping of his minor daughter. Request was made to initiate appropriate proceedings against aforementioned Jagvir, who was accordingly nominated as an accused vide DDR No.38 dated 20.02.2025 and was arrested on 21.02.2025. During the course of interrogation, aforementioned Jagvir Singh admitted that on 18.02.2025, while he was coming from Hisar to Dhuri in a train, he met a girl at Lehra. The two of them started talking to each other and planned to go to Amritsar. He got down at Jalandhar and was unaware about the HAMANT 2026.07.15 19:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-15376-2026 3 whereabouts of the girl. On 22.02.2025, the ‘Victim’ girl was recovered from Railway Station, Delhi. Rough site plan of the place of recovery was prepared. She was produced before the learned Duty Magistrate, Moonak for getting her statement recorded u/s 183 BNSS, wherein she alleged that on 17.02.2025, the present petitioner who is her brother-in-law (being husband of her cousin sister) had asked her to come to a Café on 18.02.2025 after bunking the school. When she reached the Café, at his instance, she changed her school dress her brother-in-law (P) took her to another Café, where he sexually assaulted her. She also disclosed that later she was taken to the earlier Café. On reaching the said Café, when she noticed the reflection of her father on the mirror, she and her friend boarded a bus from Moonak to Jakhal and stayed at various places. In the train, she met Jagvir Singh, who raped her. She also called her brother-in-law i.e. the present petitioner to know as to what is going on at home. Her cousin sister attended the call. That is how, her whereabouts were traced by the family. The others involved in the incident namely Gurpreet Singh, owner of the Café PB-65, Jarnail Singh, Sukhwinder Singh etc. were also arrested at various stages of investigation. The present petitioner was arrested on 22.02.2025, who during the course of interrogation confessed to his involvement in the commission of offence and was got medico legally examined. The sealed parcels handed over by the Doctor were into taken into possession by the IO for sending them to FSL. Statements of witnesses were recorded at various stages of investigation. On culmination thereof, challan complete in all respects was HAMANT 2026.07.15 19:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-15376-2026 4 filed. 3. Petitioner moved an application for grant of bail before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court, Sangrur. The same came to be dismissed vide order dated 11.08.2025. Aggrieved of which, he filed a petition bearing CRM-M-50732-2025 before this Court. The same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 10.11.2025 with the following observations:- “3. After arguing for some time, when this court was not inclined to grant the concession of bail, learned counsel for the petitioner wishes to withdraw the instant petition, at this stage. 4. In light of the above, the present petition stands dismissed as withdrawn, at this stage. 5. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.” This is the second petition filed by the petitioner, seeking relief of bail. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner, who is the brother-in-law of the ‘Victim’ being the son-in-law of her real Taya (paternal uncle), has been falsely implicated in the present case on account of some property dispute between the father of the ‘Victim’ and father-in-law of petitioner. Falsity of the case, set up by the complainant party, as per learned counsel, is apparent from the fact that Café namely PB-65, where the ‘Victim’ alleges that her person was violated by the petitioner is situated in a thickly populated area, there being no cabin in the same. If in fact the incident as alleged by the minor ‘Victim’ would have occurred, it is next to impossible that the others present in the Café would not have come to her rescue when she was being sexually assaulted by the petitioner. Further the fact that no external injury was noticed on her body during her medico legal HAMANT 2026.07.15 19:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-15376-2026 5 examination also raises doubt on the genuineness of the story put forth by her. Learned counsel has also referred to the stand of the ‘Victim’, according to whom, after the commission of wrongful act by the petitioner, she travelled to Amritsar with an unknown person whom she met during the train journey. They stayed together there for a few days before eventually parting ways. The next line of submission raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the Human semen was detected on the bed sheet stated to be recovered during investigation but in view of the inconclusive DNA report, there is nothing to suggest that petitioner had ever sexually assaulted the minor Victim. Towards the end, learned counsel 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 28 prosecution witnesses, only 05 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. Per contra, while opposing the request for grant of bail, learned State counsel accompanied by learned counsel for the complainant submit that petitioner, who is the brother-in-law of the minor ‘Victim’ and was incestuous relationship with her, not only misguided her but also sexually assaulted her. The minor ‘Victim’ has been consistent in her stand, both in her statement u/s 183 BNSS as also in her statement recorded on oath in the HAMANT 2026.07.15 19:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-15376-2026 6 Court that it was at the instance of petitioner that she visited the Café, where he violated her person. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that on account of some prior enmity between the two families, petitioner has been falsely implicated. In the light of seriousness and gravity of allegations, considering the tender age of the ‘Victim’, it has been prayed that no case for grant of bail is made out, for if extended the concession, petitioner whose past antecedents are questionable; being involved in another case bearing FIR No.160 dated 18.05.2022 registered u/s 379-B, 452, 323, 148, 149 IPC, at P.S. City Ratia, is likely to misuse the same by intimidating/threatening the material witnesses and fleeing from the process of justice by not appearing in the Court. Dismissal of the petition has been prayed for. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 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. It would also be appropriate to refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘X vs. State of Rajasthan’ 2024 SCC Online SC 3539, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in cases involving HAMANT 2026.07.15 19:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-15376-2026 7 serious offences, the Court should not be lenient in granting bail as the same impacts the trial. The relevant part of the said judgment is reproduced as follows:- "“14. Ordinarily in serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity, etc., once the trial commences and the prosecution starts examining its witnesses, the Court be it the Trial Court or the High Court should be loath in entertaining the bail application of the accused. 15. Over a period of time, we have noticed two things, i.e., (i) either bail is granted after the charge is framed and just before the victim is to be examined by the prosecution before the trial court, or (ii) bail is granted once the recording of the oral evidence of the victim is complete by looking into some discrepancies here or there in the deposition and thereby testing the credibility of the victim. 16. We are of the view that the aforesaid is not a correct practice that the Courts below should adopt. Once the trial commences, it should be allowed to reach to its final conclusion which may either result in the conviction of the accused or acquittal of the accused. The moment the High Court exercises its discretion in favour of the accused and orders release of the accused on bail by looking into the deposition of the victim, it will have its own impact on the pending trial when it comes to appreciating the oral evidence of the victim. It is only in the event if the trial gets unduly delayed and that too for no fault on the part of the accused, the Court may be justified in ordering his release on bail on the ground that right of the accused to have a speedy trial has been infringed." 8. Reverting back to the case in hand, facts leading to lodging of the FIR have already been noticed in para 2 of this order. Father of the ‘Victim’ at the time of lodging of the FIR was unaware of the facts and thus did not raise accusing fingers towards any person including the petitioner. HAMANT 2026.07.15 19:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-15376-2026 8 His only request was that an unknown person has enticed his daughter to leave her parental home by extending false promises of marriage. It was only when the ‘Victim’ was recovered that the name of the present petitioner cropped up in her statement, wherein she highlighted the role played by him. She has been quite consistent in her stand with regard to the participation of the petitioner and the misconduct committed by him. It has been noticed that the petitioner has taken a plea that on account of prior enmity between the father of the ‘Victim’ and his father-in-law, he has been falsely implicated, but surprisingly during the course of cross-examination, when a question to this effect was put across to the Victim she specifically denied the same. Moreover nothing has been brought on record to substantiate this plea of the petitioner. Considering the tender age of the ‘Victim’, the relationship of petitioner with the Victim and the seriousness and gravity of the allegations levelled against him, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case for the grant of bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. (AARADHNA SAWHNEY) JUDGE 13.07.2026 Hemant Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No HAMANT 2026.07.15 19:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document