CRM-M-21205-2026 1 208 CRM-M-21205-2026 Date of Decision:17.07.2026 Vishal ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY Present: Mr. Bhupender Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Armaan Dahiya, AAG, Haryana. *** AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (ORAL) 1. This 2nd petition for grant of bail under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by petitioner, an accused in case bearing FIR No.290 dated 01.07.2024 registered against him, u/s 140(3), 351(2) BNS (Section 64 BNS and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 added later on) at Police Station Ram Nagar, District Karnal (Annexure P-1). The first petition i.e. CRM-M- 4651- 2025 filed by the petitioner seeking similar relief had been dismissed as withdrawn on 31.01.2025. 2. Relevant facts necessary for disposal of this petition are being taken from para 2 of the status report dated 20.05.2026 filed by way of affidavit of Ms. Meena Kumari, HPS, DSP Assandh, Karnal. The same is reproduced as under:- “On 01.07.2024, a complaint was received in the police station, wherein complainant 'S' mother of victim has alleged that today at 8.30 a.m. Vishal (present petitioner) son of Suresh had taken away her daughter 'T' victim, age 17 years. He also threatened to PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.07.20 19:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-21205-2026 2 kill her daughter in case it will be disclosed to anyone. A prayer was made for taking legal action against accused. On the said complaint, initially the present FIR was lodged under section 140 (3), 351 (2) of BNS.” During the course of the investigation, the victim girl 'T' was recovered on 07.07.2024. She was produced before the learned Illaqa Magistrate for getting her statement recorded u/s 183 BNSS, (erstwhile Section 164 Cr.PC) wherein she categorically stated that she had left her parental home out of her own free will and volition and that she does not want to stay with her parents. She added that her parents should not be worried and should not look for her, as she is happy and does not want to live in their house. On 08.07.2024, minor victim 'T' was medico-legally examined at the Government Hospital, Karnal, wherein doctor has opined that “possibility of sexual assault cannot be ruled out”. Counselling of the minor victim 'T' was also conducted by CWC, Karnal and accordingly, Section 4 of the POCSO Act was added. On 08.07.2024, the petitioner was arrested, who during interrogation confessed to his involvement in the commission of the offence. On obtaining the record of Sundariya Banquet Hall, it came to the notice of the Investigating Officer that the petitioner had visited the said place and had signed at Serial No.104 of the register maintained by the Sundariya Banquet Hall. Scale site plan of the place of incident was prepared. Birth certificate of the victim 'T' was taken into possession, which revealed that she was a minor and accordingly, Section 4 of the POCSO Act was deleted and Section 6 was added. On culmination of the investigation, challan was presented. Petitioner was charge-sheeted under Section 137(2), 87, 351(3) PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.07.20 19:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-21205-2026 3 BNS and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. Out of total 17 cited prosecution witnesses, 02 i.e. victim ‘T’ and complainant have been examined. 3. Petitioner/accused, who was arrested on 08.07.2024, moved an application for grant of bail before the learned Add. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Karnal. The same came to be dismissed on 08.01.2025. Aggrieved of the which, present petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner, a young boy, aged about 21 years with clean past antecedents, has been falsely implicated in the present case. In fact, both the petitioner and victim 'T', aged about 17 years, were known to each other and had developed an emotional bond and were in a long standing ‘Consensual relationship’. They wanted to legalize their relationship by getting married and thus, on the relevant day, victim 'T' left her parental home of her own accord/free will. They had started residing at Agroha. However, due to the death of the grandmother of the victim, she stayed at her parental home for a few days and thereafter again came back to petitioner to live with him. The fact that in her first statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS, she categorically stated that she does not want to reside with her parents and that she had left her parental home of her own accord clearly suggests that the petitioner did not incite/abet her to leave her home. It is next submitted that during the course of investigation, she herself refused to undergo internal medical-examination, nor any injury was noticed by the Doctor, who prepared the medico-legal reports further which indicates that her person was never violated by the petitioner. It is also the contention of learned counsel that though in her examination-in-chief recorded on oath before the trial Court, victim changed her stance and levelled allegations against the petitioner, but again during her PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.07.20 19:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-21205-2026 4 cross-examination she did not support the case of the prosecution. She clarified that she was under tremendous pressure to suffer a statement against the petitioner on earlier occasion. In the light of this oscillating stand of the victim, learned counsel submits that the false implication of the petitioner is writ large. In any case, the victim having been already examined, lenient view deserves to be taken in favour of the petitioner, who has been in custody since 08 .07.2024, as the prospect of trial being concluded in the near future seems to be quite remote, for out of 17 prosecution witnesses, 15 still remain to be examined, there is no apprehension that if allowed, the relief sought for, petitioner would overawe complainant and other related witnesses. 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. 5. Per contra, while opposing the request for grant of bail, learned State counsel referred to the detailed investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer, the gist of which has been mentioned in the status report dated 20.05.2026. According to the learned State counsel, in view of the seriousness and gravity of the allegations, no lenient view deserves to be taken in favour of the petitioner, who had kidnapped a minor girl aged about 17 years from the lawful custody of her parents/guardian and had established physical relations with her. If extended the concession of bail, there is every likelihood of him(P) fleeing from the process of justice by not appearing in the Court. No case for grant of bail is made out. Dismissal of the petition has been prayed for. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance, perused the record available on record. PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.07.20 19:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-21205-2026 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 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 PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.07.20 19:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-21205-2026 6 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. 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 trial, considering the fact that star-witness of the prosecution story i.e. victim has already been examined, who refused to go any medical examination, this Court is of the opinion that further detention of the petitioner (who has been in custody since 08 .07.2024), PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.07.20 19:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-21205-2026 7 would not serve any useful purpose, as the same, without the prospect of trial being concluded in the near future (for out of 17 prosecution witnesses, 15 still remain to be examined) 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 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. PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.07.20 19:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-21205-2026 8 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) 17.07.2026 JUDGE Parveen kumar Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable :Yes/No PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.07.20 19:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document