CRM-M-24410-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.205 CRM-M-24410-2026 Date of Decision: 27.07.2026 BALWINDER SINGH ...Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present:- Mr. Puneet Kumar Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Hardeep Hans, AAG, Punjab. None for respondent No.2, despite service. ***** MANDEEP PANNU, J. (Oral) 1. This is the first petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 Cr.P.C.) for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 193 dated 04.07.2025, registered under Sections 64, 137(2), 96 and 61(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 376, 363, 366-A and 120-A IPC) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, at Police Station Guru Har Sahai, District Ferozepur. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that Veer Pal Kaur, mother of the prosecutrix, got recorded her statement before the police to the effect that she has two children, namely, a son aged about 16 years and a daughter, i.e. the prosecutrix, aged about 13 years. They work as labourers and the prosecutrix was studying in the 9th standard. Her date of birth is 01.03.2012. It was further alleged that on 29.06.2025, at about 4.00 a.m., when she woke up, she found that the prosecutrix was not on her cot. She ANU 2026.07.27 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-24410-2026 2 searched for her in the room and other places in the house, but could not find her anywhere. Thereafter, she woke up her husband, Balveer Singh, and son, Gagandeep Singh, and they started searching for the prosecutrix on their own, but could not trace her. While searching towards the fields, they found the prosecutrix lying near the outlet of a water channel in the fields of their neighbour, Jashandeep Singh @ Monty. On reaching near her, they found that she was covered in blood, her hair was dishevelled and smeared with mud, and she was lying in an unconscious state. They picked her up and brought her home. After sprinkling water on her face, she regained consciousness and, upon being asked, disclosed that while she was sleeping, accused Bobby had come to their house, forcibly woke her up by grabbing her arm and asked her to accompany him. When she tried to raise an alarm, Bobby placed his hand over her mouth and forcibly took her to the motor situated in the fields of Jashandeep Singh @ Monty, where he forcibly established physical relations with her without her consent. It was further got recorded by the complainant that, in the meantime, her brother-in-law (Jeth) informed them that he had seen Bobby consuming liquor at the house of Balwinder Singh (present petitioner) during the night and that they were talking about something. On the basis thereof, the complainant alleged that it was with the connivance of Balwinder Singh, the present petitioner, that her daughter was abducted and forcibly raped by Bobby. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case merely on the basis of suspicion. It is contended that there is a delay of six days in lodging the FIR. Neither the prosecutrix nor the complainant has levelled any allegation against the petitioner of having committed any overt act or any offence ANU 2026.07.27 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-24410-2026 3 against the prosecutrix. The only allegation against the petitioner is that the complainant’s brother-in-law (Jeth) had allegedly seen the main accused, Bobby, consuming liquor with the petitioner on the night prior to the occurrence and that both of them were talking to each other. However, there is not even a whisper in the FIR or in the statements of the witnesses as to what conversation had taken place between them or how such conversation could lead to an inference that the petitioner had connived with the main accused in the commission of the alleged offence. Thus, the petitioner has been implicated solely on the basis of conjectures and suspicion. It is further submitted that the statements of all the material witnesses, including the prosecutrix, the complainant and even the father of the prosecutrix, have already been recorded before the trial Court. None of them has made any allegation beyond what was stated in the FIR. Except for the allegation of alleged connivance, there is no other material connecting the petitioner with the commission of the offence. The petitioner is in custody for the last about nine months. Therefore, he prays that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail. It is submitted that the allegations levelled in the present case are grave in nature as they relate to the rape of a minor girl. It is contended that the petitioner had connived with the main accused, Bobby, in the commission of the offence and, therefore, he has been arrayed as an accused with the aid of Section 120-B IPC, corresponding to Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations and the fact that the victim is a minor child, it is argued that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. ANU 2026.07.27 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-24410-2026 4 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. 6. The role attributed to the present petitioner deserves careful consideration. Admittedly, the petitioner is not the principal accused. The allegation of committing rape has been levelled exclusively against co- accused Bobby. So far as the present petitioner is concerned, the only allegation is that on the night preceding the occurrence, he was allegedly seen consuming liquor with the main accused and both of them were talking to each other. There is neither any allegation nor any material on record to indicate as to what transpired between them or how such conversation establishes any meeting of minds so as to attract the offence of criminal conspiracy. The allegation of connivance appears to have been drawn merely on the basis of suspicion arising from the fact that the petitioner and the main accused were allegedly together on the previous night. At this stage, there is no material indicating any active participation of the petitioner in the alleged abduction or in the commission of the offence of rape. 7. It is also not in dispute that six prosecution witnesses have already been examined, including the prosecutrix, the complainant and other material witnesses. Thus, the evidence of the principal witnesses already stands recorded and, therefore, the possibility of the petitioner influencing or winning over the material witnesses or tampering with the prosecution evidence is substantially diminished. The petitioner has remained in custody for the last about nine months and the trial is likely to take some more time to conclude. 8. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of allegations attributed to the petitioner, his limited ANU 2026.07.27 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-24410-2026 5 role, the fact that the material prosecution witnesses have already been examined, the period of custody undergone by him and the settled principles governing grant of bail, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail. 9. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner, Balwinder Singh, is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case. 10. However, it is clarified that the observations made herein are confined only to the adjudication of the present petition and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case during the course of trial. 11. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) 27.07.2026 JUDGE Anu Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No ANU 2026.07.27 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh