CRM-M-25372-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 210 CRM-M-25372-2026 Date of Decision : 16.07.2026 KHUSHDEEP @ KHUSHPREET @ KHUSHI ...Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY Present: Mr. J.K. Singla, Advocate, Ms. Shivani Singla, Advocate, Mr. Dheeraj Singla, Advocate and Ms. Suman Rani, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gautam Thapar, Sr. DAG, Punjab. **** AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (ORAL) 1. This petition for grant of bail under Section 483 BNSS, has been filed by petitioner, an accused in case bearing FIR No.67 dated 20.03.2024, registered against him at Police Station City Budhlada, District Mansa, for the commission of offences punishable u/s 363, 366-A IPC (now Sections 137(2), 96 of BNS) and Section 376 IPC (Section 64 of BNS) and Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act were added later on. 2. Facts necessary for disposal of this petition have been taken from para 3 of the Status report dated 13.07.2026 filed by way of affidavit of Mr. Sikander Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division Budhlada, District Mansa. The same is reproduced as under:- “3. That perusal of the case file and the related record reveals that the present FIR came into picture on statement of complainant ‘XX’ Son of ‘XXX’ with averments that he is a shopkeeper and NISHA 2026.07.17 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-25372-2026 -2- having three children i.e. two daughters and one son and his daughter namely ‘X’ whose date of birth is 02.07.2006 studying in +2 Class and who has gone from house on 16.03.2024 at 2:30 in day and thereafter, the complainant searching his daughter at his own level till now and then on the basis of suspicion got registered FIR against petitioner by levelling allegations that the complainant came to know that accused Khushdeep Singh (present petitioner) used to follow his daughter & now, enticed away his daughter at somewhere else under pretext of marriage and accordingly on the basis of above mentioned statement the present FIR No.67 dated 20.03.2024 for commission of offences under section 363 and 366- A IPC against the petitioner.” On the basis of said complaint, initially a formal case vide FIR No. 67 dated 20.03.2024, u/s 363, 366-A IPC (now Sections 137(2), 96 of BNS) was registered against the present petitioner. During the course of investigation, on 24.03.2024, victim ‘X’ was produced by her father i.e. complainant before the Investigating Officer. On the same day, victim was also got Medico Legally examined. Copy of the Medico Legal Report is appended as Annexure R-2 along with the status report. Sealed parcels including her Medico Legal Report, vaginal swabs, blood samples and pubic hair, handed over by the doctor, were taken into possession by the Investigating Officer and sent to FSL Mohali, for further chemical examination. The report is still awaited. She was produced before the learned Magistrate on the same day i.e. on 24.03.2024 for getting her statement recorded u/s 183 BNSS (erstwhile NISHA 2026.07.17 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-25372-2026 -3- Section 164 Cr.P.C.). Copy of the said statement is also appended as Annexure R-1 with the status report. Thereafter, offences u/s Section 376 IPC (Section 64 of BNS) and Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act were added vide DDR No.33 dated 24.03.2024. Even one Parveen Kumar was also nominated as co-accused. On 05.04.2024 , present petitioner along with co-accused Parveen Kumar was arrested. Petitioner was also got Medico Legally examined. Sealed parcels including his Medico Legal Report and medical samples handed over by the doctor, were taken into possession by the Investigating Officer and sent to FSL Mohali, for further chemical examination. The report of the same is also awaited. During the further course of investigation, date of birth of the victim was verified from DAV Sr. Sec. Public School, Budhlada. In school record, her date of birth was recorded as 02.07.2006. Statement of witnesses were recorded at various stages. On culmination of investigation, challan complete in all respect was prepared and filed in the Court. 3. Aggrieved of the order dated 30.04.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court, Mansa, vide which application for grant of bail filed by the petitioner was dismissed, the present petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner, a young boy of 23 years of age with clean past antecedents, has been falsely implicated in the present case. In fact, petitioner and victim were in long standing ‘consensual’ relationship. They were emotionally attached with each other and NISHA 2026.07.17 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-25372-2026 -4- were desirous of spending their lives together. Victim left her parental home of her own accord. Falsity of the case set up by prosecution is apparent from the fact that when victim and her father i.e. complainant, while appearing in the witness box as PW-1 & PW-2, respectively, did not support the case of the prosecution. Learned counsel contends that though they were subjected to rigorous cross-examination by learned Public Prosecutor, after they were declared ‘hostile’, but nothing fruitful to support the case of the prosecution could be elicited therefrom. It is further the submission of learned counsel that co-accused, namely, Parveen Kumar has since been granted the concession of bail by the co- ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 13.11.2024 passed in CRM-M- 52421-2024 (Annexure P-6), it has thus been prayed that similar treatment be meted out to present petitioner. Learned counsel next contends that in the light of submissions advanced hereinabove, lenient view deserves to be taken in favour of the petitioner, who has been in custody since 05.04.2024, moreso, as the prospect of trial being concluded in the near future seems to be quite remote, for out of 11 prosecution witnesses only 03 have been examined till date. Further in the wake of star-witnesses of prosecution story i.e. victim and complainant having been already examined (who did not support the case of the prosecution), the apprehension that if extended the relief sought for, petitioner would over-awe them stands negated. When viewed in the factual scenario of the case in hand, further incarceration of petitioner would not serve any useful purpose as 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. NISHA 2026.07.17 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-25372-2026 -5- 5. Per contra, while referring to the Status Report dated 13.07.2026 by way of affidavit of Mr. Sikander Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division Budhlada, District Mansa, learned State counsel has opposed the request for grant of bail on the ground that petitioner lured the minor girl out of the lawful custody of her parents and induced her to leave the parental home by falsely assuring her to get married. Thereafter, he sexually assaulted the victim. In view of her tender age, she being a minor, her consent is absolutely inconsequential in the eyes of law. Moreover, the FSL/DNA report is still awaited. In view of the seriousness and gravity of allegations levelled, no case for grant of bail is made out. Dismissal of the petition has been prayed for. 6. 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 NISHA 2026.07.17 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-25372-2026 -6- 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 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 case titled State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Anurudh & another, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 29, in the context of misuse of POCSO Act, highlighted the grim societal chasm. In this context the Court took note of several instances of application of POCSO Act, working harshly on consenting adolescence teenagers when it comes to consensual relationship between teenagers. The Supreme Court noted that Allahabad High Court in the NISHA 2026.07.17 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-25372-2026 -7- case of Satish alias Chand vs. State of UP (Crl. Mis. Bail Application No.18596 of 2024) highlighted the factors required to be considered by the Courts while dealing with cases relating to relationship between teenagers. The same are reproduced as under: “A. Assess the Context: Each case should be evaluated on its individual facts and circumstances. The nature of the relationship and the intentions of both parties should be carefully examined. B. Consider Victim's Statement: The statement of the alleged victim should be given due consideration. If the relationship is consensual and based on mutual affection, this should be factored into decisions regarding bail and prosecution. C. Avoid Perversity of Justice: Ignoring the consensual nature of a relationship can lead to unjust outcomes, such as wrongful imprisonment. The judicial system should aim to balance the protection of minors with the recognition of their autonomy in certain contexts. Here the age comes out to be an important factor. D. Judicial Discretion: Courts should use their discretion wisely, ensuring that the application of POCSO does not inadvertently harm the very individuals it is meant to protect.” 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 NISHA 2026.07.17 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-25372-2026 -8- genuine and expressed fear of being victimized, it would be a factor that a judge would need to consider in an appropriate case. In Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2012(1) RCR (Criminal) 586, Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the order of the High Court in granting bail to the second respondent/accused on the ground that he had been in custody for a long period and the possibility of the trial being concluded in the near future was remote. 8. In view of the settled proposition of law, without dwelling deep into the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice the mind of the trial Court, considering the fact that star-witnesses of the prosecution story i.e. victim and her father i.e. complainant have already been examined, this Court is of the opinion that further detention of the petitioner (who has been in custody since 05.04.2024), would not serve any useful purpose, as the same, without the prospect of trial being concluded in the near future, for out of 11 prosecution witnesses only 03 have been examined till date, would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, including right to speedy trial. 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 NISHA 2026.07.17 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-25372-2026 -9- 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, he 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. (ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other condition, as deemed appropriate while releasing the petitioner. 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. 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 16.07.2026 Nisha Yadav Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NISHA 2026.07.17 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document