CRM-M-27572-2026 1 215 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-27572-2026 Date of Decision:27.07.2026 Neeraj ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY Present: Ms. Nikita Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Bintu Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Armaan Dahiya, AAG, Haryana. *** 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.176 dated 02.07.2025 registered against him, u/s 140(3), 351(2), 61, 65(1) BNS (Sections 137 and 96 BNS and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 added later on) at Police Station Kaithal Sadar, Distt. Kaithal. 2. Relevant facts necessary for disposal of this petition are being taken from para 2 of the status report dated 24.07.2026 filed by way of affidavit of Mr. Bir Bhan, DSP (HQ), Kaithal. The same is reproduced as under:- “On 02.07.2025, complainant Niranjan Singh son of Mangat Singh resident, of village Prempura, District Kaithal had come present in Police Station and presented a complaint stating therein that he is an agriculturist and has three children viz elder son namely Gursevak aged 16 years, younger daughter ‘GK’ (Victim) whose date of birth is 27.01.2011 and the youngest is 7 PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.07.28 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-27572-2026 2 years. He further stated that on 02.07.2025, he went to drop his daughter namely ‘GK’ (Victim) in her school at village Nauch. He returned after dropping his daughter at the gate of the school. Thereafter, he received information from the school that his daughter had not come to school. Thereafter, he reached school and did not find his daughter there. When he reached at the main gate of the school while searching his daughter, he saw his daughter weeping in the street, she was frightened. When the complainant asked her the reason of weeping, she told that when the complainant left her at the gate, then Jaskaran and Neeraj (present petitioner) both resident of village Rasulpur came there and got her seated at the motorcycle by putting her under threat and took her to a hotel at Pehowa, where Jaskaran took her in a room and Neeraj(P) stayed outside and Jaskaran forcibly committed rape upon him. Thereafter, Jaskaran and Neeraj (P) again left her at village Nauch. Complainant had also dialed 112.” On the basis of the said complaint, a formal case FIR No.176 dated 02.07.2025 was registered against the present petitioner for commission of offences punishable u/s 65(1), 140(3), 61(2), 351(2) BNS and Section 4 POCSO Act. On 03.07.2025, Victim was got medico legally examined. The Medico-Legal Report (MLR) and blood samples of the victim, handed over by the examining Doctor, were taken into possession by the Investigating Officer for sending them to FSL. She was also got counseled from a female lawyer and was later produced before the learned Magistrate for getting her statement recorded u/s 183 BNSS (corresponding to Section 164 Cr.PC). Site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared on the demarcation of the Victim. The incriminating articles recovered from the hotel room i.e. bed sheet, pillow cover, and towel, were taken into possession by the Investigating Officer vide PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.07.28 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-27572-2026 3 a recovery memo. Case property was deposited in the Malkhana of the Police Station and Sections 96 and 137 BNS were added. On 03.07.2025, petitioner was arrested, who during the course of interrogation confessed to his involvement in the commission of offense. Thereafter, on the identification of present petitioner, co-accused Jaskaran was also apprehended. He got demarcated the place where he had maintained physical relations with the Victim. He was also got medico-legally examined. Sealed samples handed over by the Doctor were taken into possession by the IO for further chemical examination. The role played by the petitioner has also been highlighted in para 13 of the status report. Petitioner is alleged to have initially taken the minor Victim from the gate of the school on his motorcycle bearing registration No.HR09B-7773, (make Splendor) and thereafter, petitioner along with co- accused Jaskaran took the victim to Five Star Hotel, Pehowa, where her person was violated by co-accused Jaskaran, while the petitioner remained standing outside as a guard. Petitioner knew that the ‘Victim’ is a student of 10th class and is a ‘minor’. He also got recovered the motorcycle used in the commission of offence from his residence, which was taken into possession. Admittedly, the victim is a minor, as per her date of birth which stands recorded in the school record. Statement of the witnesses were recorded at various stages of the investigation. On culmination of the investigation, challan completed in all respect, was filed against the petitioner u/s 140(3), 61(2), 65(1), 351(3) BNS and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. 3. Petitioner/accused, who was arrested on 03.07.2025, moved an application for grant of bail before the learned Add. Sessions Judge, Special PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.07.28 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-27572-2026 4 Court, Kaithal. The same came to be dismissed on 10.02.2026. Aggrieved of the which, present petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner, a young boy, aged about 20 years with clean past antecedents, has been falsely implicated in the present case only on account of the fact that he was on friendly terms with the main accused Jaskaran. It is further the submission of learned counsel that even if the allegations as levelled by the prosecution are taken to be true at their face value (though not admitted), only role played by petitioner is that he took the Victim from the school and later accompanied her and co-accused Jaskaran to a hotel. There are no allegations of sexual harassment against him (P). Learned counsel 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 03.07.2025, as the prospect of trial being concluded in the near future seems to be quite remote, for out of 33 prosecution witnesses only 04 have been examined till date. Moreover, star- witnesses of prosecution story i.e. victim and her father (complainant) having been already examined, there is no apprehension that if allowed, the relief sought for, petitioner would overawe complainant/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 of the bail, learned State counsel submits that petitioner facilitated the main accused in kidnapping the Victim, who was about 14 years of age, by intimidating her and thereafter PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.07.28 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-27572-2026 5 facilitated the commission of penetrative sexual assault upon her by the co- accused Jaskaran, is not entitled to the relief as sought for. Further, if extended the concession of bail, there is every likelihood of him fleeing from the process of justice by not appearing in the Court. In view of the seriousness and gravity of offence, 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. 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. PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.07.28 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-27572-2026 6 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 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 PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.07.28 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-27572-2026 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, without dwelling deep into the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice the trial, considering the fact that star-witnesses of the prosecution story i.e. victim and her father- complainant have already been examined, this Court is of the opinion that further detention of the petitioner (who has been in custody since 03.07.202 5), would not serve any useful purpose, as the same, without the prospect of trial being concluded in the near future, for out of 33 prosecution witnesses only 04 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 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 PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.07.28 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-27572-2026 8 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) 27.07.2026 JUDGE Parveen kumar Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable :Yes/No PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.07.28 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document