CRM-M-30507-2026 1 216 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-30507-2026 Date of Decision:27.07.2026 Ravi ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY Present: Ms. Sakshi Khera, Advocate (through V.C.) for the petitioner. Mr. Armaan Dahiya, AAG, Haryana. *** AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (ORAL) 1. This is the second petition for grant of bail under Section 483 BNSS, filed by petitioner, an accused in case bearing FIR No.40 dated 14.05.2024 registered against him at Police Station Women Central Faridabad, District Faridabad, for the commission of offences punishable u/s 354, 354-A, 328, 376, 511 IPC. First petition bearing CRM-M-7874-2025 seeking similar relief was dismissed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 07.05.2025. 2. Relevant facts necessary for disposal of this petition are being taken from para 2 of the status report dated 25.07.2026 filed by way of affidavit of Mr. Kailash Chand, HPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Old Faridabad. The same is reproduced as under:- “That brief facts of the prosecution case are that the complainant 'S' aged about 21 years studied upto 9th standard PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.07.29 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-30507-2026 2 reported to the police that since she was being tortured by her stepmother, she had left her house and reached Delhi. She had started residing at the Delhi Railway Station near Sadar Market. On 13.05.2024, she was sleeping at the Delhi Railway Station. At about 11:00 p.m., a man (Petitioner) offered her food and water after which, she gained consciousness at Metro Station, Faridabad. The man(P) questioned her as to how she reached in the other District, to which he(P) tried to pacify her and removed her clothes. She raised an alarm and two men reached to her rescue, who took them to the nearest Police Station. The complainant sought legal action that offender be punished for his misbehaviour. On the basis of the said complaint, a formal case FIR No. 40 dated 14.05.2024 was registered against the present petitioner for commission of offences punishable u/s 354, 354A, 328 IPC (Sections 376 and 511 IPC added later on) at Police Station Women Central, Faridabad. During the course of investigation on 14.05.2024, statement of the Victim was recorded in the presence of Legal Aid Counsel. On 14.05.2024, Victim was got medico legally examined at Civil Hospital, Faridabad. 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. But at the said point in time, Victim stated that nothing wrong had happened with her, therefore, her internal medical examination was not got conducted. However, her blood sample was taken in a two-seal vial, which were handed over to the I.O. for examination of intoxicating substance. On 15.05.2024, Victim was produced before the learned Magistrate for getting her statement recorded u/s 183 BNSS (corresponding to PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.07.29 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-30507-2026 3 Section 164 Cr.PC) wherein serious and specific allegations were levelled by her against the accused-Petitioner. On 15.05.2024, petitioner was arrested, who during the course of interrogation confessed to his involvement in the commission of offense. He got demarcated the place of occurrence and was also got medico-legally examined. Sealed samples handed over by the Doctor were taken into possession by the IO for further chemical examination. On culmination of the investigation, challan complete in all respect, was filed against the petitioner u/s 376, 511, 354, 354-A and 328 IPC. 3. Since dismissal of the first petition on 07.05.2025 from this Court, petitioner/accused, who was arrested on 15.05.2024, moved third application for grant of bail before the learned Add. Sessions Judge, Faridabad. The same came to be dismissed on 12.05.2026. Aggrieved of which, the present petition has been filed. This is the second petition filed by the petitioner seeking similar relief. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner appearing through V.C. contends that petitioner, a young boy, aged about 27 years with clean past antecedents, has been falsely implicated in the present case. Allegations levelled by complainant remain unsubstantiated by the scientific evidence, for as per FSL report, no poisonous or intoxicating substance was detected in her blood sample. Even otherwise, the story as portrayed in the FIR does not appear to be plausible. It is next the submission of learned counsel that victim, for the reasons best known to her, also denied to undergo the internal medical examination which further raises a question-mark on the genuineness of the story put-forth by her. PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.07.29 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-30507-2026 4 The third leg of submission raised by learned counsel is that since the dismissal of the first petition, by this Court on 07.05.2025, the trial has not progressed, inasmuch as not even a single witness has been examined. Towards the end, 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 15.05.2024, as prospect of trial being concluded in the near future seems to be quite remote as no prosecution witness has been examined so far. Shockingly enough, the whereabouts of star- witness of prosecution story are untraceable. 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 the Victim, a young woman, was subjected to sexual harassment by the present petitioner after he administered an intoxicating substance to her, followed by an attempt to commit rape. 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 PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.07.29 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-30507-2026 5 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 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 PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.07.29 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-30507-2026 6 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 trial has not progressed further, the whereabouts of the star-witness of the prosecution story are not known, this Court is of the opinion that further detention of the petitioner (who has been in custody since 15.05.2024, would not serve any useful purpose, as the same, without the prospect of trial being PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.07.29 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-30507-2026 7 concluded in the near future (for none of the prosecution has been examined so far) would 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, 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 2026.07.29 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-30507-2026 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) 27.07.2026 JUDGE Parveen kumar Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable :Yes/No PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.07.29 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document