CRM-M-19929-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-19929-2026 Date of decision: 22.07.2026 Parminder Singh Puri ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY Present: Mr. Sushant Kareer, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Krishan Lal Saini, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. Manpreet Singh Dhillon, Advocate for the complainant. AARADHNA SAWHNEY , J (ORAL) 1. By virtue of the instant petition under Section 483 BNSS, petitioner, an accused in case bearing FIR No.64 dated 05.03.2025 registered against him, for commission of offences punishable under Sections 74 and 115(2) of BNS at P.S Division No.5, Police Commissionerate, Ludhiana , has prayed for grant of bail. 2. Relevant facts as emerging from the documents on record be noticed hereinbelow: Criminal proceedings in the present case were initiated on the basis of a complaint lodged by the victim ‘XXX’, daughter of petitioner and resident of Ludhiana wherein she stated that they are two sisters. There has been a matrimonial discord between her parents. While she is residing in the custody of her father, her elder sister ‘MMM’ is residing with her mother at a separate residence. Complainant further stated that prior to March 2024, she had been residing in a hostel. According to her, her father is a habitual alcoholic, who often abuses her and physically assaults her. At about 11.30 pm on 03.03.2025, when she was changing clothes in her room, her father (P) in a heavily MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.24 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-19929-2026 2 intoxicated condition started banging on the door and asked her to open it. She told him to wait for some time as she was not properly dressed. However, he did not pay any heed to her request and demanded that she should get out of the house. To her utter shock, he broke open the door. At that time, she was only partially dressed and was unable to put on her Pyjama. It is further alleged that after entering the room, her father (P) threw her on the floor, sat on top of her and started beating her. He strangulated her due to which she started suffocating. Her private parts were pulled and that despite her attempts to resist, petitioner did not desist. Thereafter, in the same condition, she was dragged out and forcefully thrown on the back seat of the car. He (P) also snatched her phone and started driving. After the vehicle had covered some distance, the petitioner allegedly lost control over the car as a consequence of which, it hit some object. In the meantime, she managed to snatch her phone back from him, got out of the car and starting raising an alarm thereby attracting the attention of other persons, who had gathered nearby. She immediately called up one of her friends, who arrived at the spot along with her mother (wife of petitioner) and sister, who took her away. She got her statement recorded in presence of mother. The statement was accompanied by a medico-legal report wherein the number of injuries allegedly suffered by the minor victim are mentioned. On the basis of said complaint and medico-legal report, aforesaid FIR was registered. During the course of investigation, police officials visited the place of occurrence, inspected the site and prepared a rough site plan. Opinion of the Doctor with regard to the nature of injuries suffered by the minor victim was sought, who opined as follows: “no gross and Obvious fresh Bone injury seen by me” Petitioner, who is the real father of the minor victim, was produced by his friend before the I.O on 05.03.2025 and was arrested on the same day. MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.24 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-19929-2026 3 Victim ‘XXX’ was produced before the learned Illaqa Magistrate for getting her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C (183 of BNSS) wherein she reiterated her stand. In view of said statement, Section 10 of POCSO Act was added vide G.D No.07 dated 29.04.2025. Statement of witnesses were recorded during the course of investigation. On completion thereof, challan complete in all respect was filed before the Court on 05.05.2025. Petitioner was charge sheeted. As per the Status report filed by way of affidavit dated 24.05.2026 of Sarabjeet Singh, ACP, Civil Lines, Ludhiana, two prosecution witnesses have been examined including the victim. Petitioner, who is the real father of the minor victim ‘XXX’, moved an application for grant of bail before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ludhiana. Same came to be dismissed vide order dated 09.04.2025. Aggrieved of which present petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner aged about 50 years with clean past antecedents has been falsely implicated in the present case by his own daughter, who initiated criminal proceedings against him at the instance of his wife i.e mother of the victim, with whom his relations are far from cordial. It is submitted that due to temperamental differences, petitioner and his wife have been residing separately for the past several years. The couple is blessed with two daughters. The elder one is living with her mother whereas younger one i.e victim ‘XXX’, who was earlier studying in a Boarding School, has been residing with him (p) since 2024. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner being a loving and caring father, was conscious of the emotional trauma being experienced by his daughter, who was residing separately from her mother. Thus, with a view to take care of her so that she does not feel lonely and left out, he had been taking her on vacations and trips along with their common family friends. Learned counsel has MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.24 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-19929-2026 4 also referred to the photographs of petitioner, complainant/victim, and their family friends enjoying their vacations together, appended with the petition as Annexure P-7 (colly). It is further submitted that being a conscientious father, the petitioner has been paying her school fee and other miscellaneous expenses of the minor victim, who was studying in one of the most prestigious schools in Punjab. According to learned counsel, the demeanor of the parties and the connecting circumstances brought on record from these photographs completely negate any allegation of misconduct on the part of the petitioner. It is next submitted that during the period of approximately last one year for which the ‘XXX’ had been residing with her father (P), she never made any complaint of the nature now alleged against him nor any other woman has ever levelled such allegation. It is further the submission of learned counsel that the falsity of the case set up by the victim is apparent from the fact that when she appeared before the learned Magistrate in proceedings under section 125 CRPC initiated by her mother, she had deposed against her mother and expressed her desire to reside with her father. It is further submitted that the dismissal of the maintenance petition filed by mother and immediate lodging of the FIR thereafter clearly reflects that the present criminal proceedings are a counterblast to the said dismissal and have been instituted only with a view to harass the petitioner. Learned counsel contends that the incident did not occur in the manner as portrayed by the victim and an entirely different color has been given only with a view to malign the reputation of the petitioner and subject him to mental harassment. In fact, on the day of the alleged incident, the petitioner, who was responsible for the care and welfare of the minor victim, noticed a pregnancy test kit in the boot of her scooter, and as expected, he became infuriated and thus questioned her in this regard, who (victim ‘XXX’) then created a ruckus. MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.24 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-19929-2026 5 Continuing further, learned counsel contends that if the intention of the petitioner had been actually to sexually molest his daughter, he would not have dragged her out of the room and made her sit in the car. Towards the end, learned counsel contends that the present FIR is the result of a carefully conceived plan by the petitioner’s wife to lower his esteem and reputation in the society. Learned counsel next contends that in the wake of star witness of the prosecution story having already been examined, further incarceration of the petitioner, who has been in custody since 5-3-2025, would not serve any useful purpose, moreso where likelihood of completion of trial in the near future is quite remote, for many PWs remain to be examined and 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. 4. Per contra, while opposing the request for grant of bail, learned State counsel accompanied by learned counsel for the complainant submits that the petitioner who was expected to protect his daughter has himself turned into a sexual predator and has misused the position of trust. It is submitted that the question as to whether he has been falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of the mother of the minor victim would be adjudicated only after the parties lead their respective evidence. In the light of statement made on oath by the victim, who has reiterated her stand and taking note of the seriousness and gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, who is her father, no case for grant of bail is made out, for if extended the concession of bail, there is every likelihood of him fleeing from the process of justice by not appearing in the Court. Learned counsel for the complainant contends that the plea of petitioner that he had found the pregnancy test kit in the boot of the Scooter of minor victim, is a concocted story, introduced only with a view to wriggle out of the embarrassing situation in which he (P) is placed. In fact, the said kit belonged MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.24 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-19929-2026 6 to the petitioner, who is a man of vices. Dismissal of the petition has been prayed for. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties perused the documents on record. 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:- 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. MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.24 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-19929-2026 7 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 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. 7. Reverting back to the case in hand, factual aspects leading to the lodging of the FIR, have already been noticed in para 2 of this order. Admittedly the mother of the victim and the petitioner, who is the father of the victim, have been litigating against each other due to matrimonial discord. Without adverting MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.24 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-19929-2026 8 to the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice the trial and taking into account long incarceration of the petitioner, whose past antecedents are quite clean and considering the fact that star witness of the prosecution story has been examined, this Court is of the opinion that petitioner, who has been in custody since 05.03.2025, 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. 8. 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. (ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other condition, as deemed appropriate while releasing the petitioner. MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.24 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-19929-2026 9 9. 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. 10. 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. 22.07.2026 ( AARADHNA SAWHNEY ) manoj JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.24 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document