CRM-M-23499-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 218 CRM-M-23499-2026 Date of decision: 22.07.2026 Sachin @ Golu ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY Present : Mr. Rajiv Kumar Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.L. Saini, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. Bhim Singh, 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.174 dated 17.05.2025 registered against him, for commission of offences punishable under Sections 351(2) BNS and Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 at Police Station City Madhuban, 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 14.07.2026 filed by way of affidavit of Mr. Manoj Kumar, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gharaunda, District Karnal. The same is reproduced as under:- “That the brief facts of the case are that the present FIR was registered on a complaint of 'N' (name withheld) on the allegations that she has two sons and four daughters. The petitioner developed relationship with her minor daughter 'V' (name withheld)/respondent No.2 by alluring and threatening to kill her in case she disclosed the relationship to her family members. When the victim girl complained of abdominal pain, HAMANT 2026.07.24 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-23499-2026 2 she was medically examined and an ultrasound reportedly revealed that she was carrying a pregnancy of approximately 3- 4 months. The victim girl was stated to be about 15 years of age at the relevant time. A copy of the FIR is already annexed as Annexure P-1 with the petition.” During the course of investigation, the ‘Victim’ was produced before the Child Welfare Committee, Karnal and was also got medico legally examined, during which she was found to be pregnant. The biological samples and other exhibits collected during the medico-legal examination were taken into possession and forwarded for forensic examination and report. The Birth certificate of the ‘Victim’ was taken into possession wherein her Date of Birth was recorded as 22.03.2010, indicating the ‘Victim’ was minor on the date of registration of the FIR. The ‘Victim’ was also produced before the learned Illaqa Magistrate for getting her statement recorded u/s 183 BNSS, wherein she stated that petitioner is a boy from her neighbourhood, who has been a frequent visitor to her house. He did not use any force against her. The two of them developed relationship with each other out of their free will. She also expressed her desire that the case be closed. Petitioner was arrested on 17.05.2025, who during the course of interrogation confessed to his involvement in the commission of offence and was got medico legally examined. The biological samples and relevant exhibits collected during the medical examination were taken into possession and forwarded for the forensic examination. On 27.05.2025, the ‘Ultra-sound’ examination of the minor HAMANT 2026.07.24 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-23499-2026 3 ‘Victim’ was got conducted when it came to the notice that she was 25 weeks’ pregnant. She also expressed her desire to continue with the pregnancy and deliver the child. The custody of the ‘Victim’ was entrusted to the Child Welfare Committee, Karnal. On culmination of investigation, challan complete in all respect was filed in the Court. Petitioner has been charge-sheeted u/s 6 of POCSO Act (in the alternative u/s 65(1) BNS) and 351(2) of BNS. Admittedly, neither the ‘Victim’ girl nor her mother at whose behest criminal proceedings were initiated, while appearing as PW-1 and PW-2, respectively, before Ld. trial Court, supported the case of the prosecution. 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 15.04.2026. Aggrieved of which, the present petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner, a young boy aged about 19 years with clean past antecedents, has been falsely implicated in the present case. Petitioner and ‘Victim’ were known to each other for the last many years. They were emotionally attached and wanted to legalize their relationship. They were intending to get married as and when they attain the marriageable age. Petitioner never forced himself on the ‘Victim’. Somehow they did not disclose all the facts to the parents of the ‘Victim’, who were unaware of their bond and thus, got the criminal proceedings initiated under some mistaken impression. Consistent stand of ‘Victim’ at various stages of the case renders support to the plea of the HAMANT 2026.07.24 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-23499-2026 4 petitioner that he and the ‘Victim’ were in long standing ‘consensual’ relationship. Attention of the Court has been drawn to the statement made by the ‘Victim’ when she was produced before the learned Illaqa Magistrate for getting her statement recorded u/s 183 BNSS, as also to her statement recorded on oath in the Court where, while appearing as PW-1, she frankly deposed that petitioner never seduced her or forced himself on her neither did he threaten her. In fact, the mother of the ‘Victim’ who initiated criminal proceedings also resiled from her initial statement given to the police authorities and deposed that the present FIR was got registered under some mistaken impression. It is further the submission of learned counsel that the parents of both the petitioner and ‘Victim’ have sat together and have arrived at a compromise that as soon as the two of them i.e. petitioner and ‘Victim’ attain marriageable age, they would be married. 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 15 prosecution witnesses, only 02 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 contends that in the light of seriousness and gravity of the offence, no case for grant of bail is made out, for the age of minor ‘Victim’ HAMANT 2026.07.24 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-23499-2026 5 being less than 18, her ‘consent’ is totally inconsequential as also if extended the concession of bail, there is every likelihood of him fleeing from the process of justice by not appearing in the Court. Dismissal of the petition has been prayed for. It needs to be pointed out that learned counsel for the complainant did not raise any objection to the grant of bail. 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. 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 case of Satish alias Chand vs. State of UP (Crl. Mis. Bail HAMANT 2026.07.24 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-23499-2026 6 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 genuine and expressed fear of HAMANT 2026.07.24 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-23499-2026 7 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 dwelling deep into the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice the trial, this Court is of the opinion that petitioner, whose past antecedents are clean and who has been in custody since 17.05.2025, deserves to be extended the concession of bail as the likelihood of completion of trial is quite remote, for out of 15 prosecution witnesses, only 02 have been examined till date. Thus, when viewed in this light, further incarceration of petitioner 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 HAMANT 2026.07.24 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-23499-2026 8 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. 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 22.07.2026 Hemant Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No HAMANT 2026.07.24 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document