211 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.25760 of 2026 Date of decision: 20.08.2026 Suraj Bhan @ Suraj …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present :- Mr. Tejas Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, AAG, Haryana for respondent No.1-State. Mr. Hemant Hans, Advocate for respondent No.2. ***** MANDEEP PANNU, J. (Oral) 1. This is the first petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section 439 Cr.P.C.) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.125 dated 11.04.2023, registered under Sections 363, 366, 376(3), 450 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the POCSO Act and Section 346 IPC was deleted, at Police Station Kunjpura, District Karnal, Haryana. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the missing report was lodged by Ram Kumar, father of the prosecutrix, stating that his daughter, aged 14 years, had left the house for school on 10.04.2023 at about 8:00 a.m., but did not return home till 6:00 p.m. Thereafter, they NEETU RANI 2026.08.20 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT PHHC, CHD CRM-M No.25760 of 2026 -2- searched for her at the houses of their relatives and at other places, but she could not be traced. It was stated that on receiving any information regarding her whereabouts, the same would be conveyed to the police. Subsequently, the prosecutrix was recovered and her statement was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 180 of the BNSS), wherein she stated that she had met Suraj Bhan @ Suraj through Instagram about one year prior to the incident and thereafter, they started talking over the phone. She further stated that Suraj had told her that he would marry her and that on 10.04.2023, when her family members were away for work and she was alone at home, Suraj Bhan came to her house and had physical relations with her without her consent. Thereafter, he abducted her with the intention of marrying her and took her by train to Pune, where they stayed in a rented house at Camp Road. She further alleged that Suraj Bhan again had physical relations with her without her consent and threatened her not to disclose the matter to anyone and threatened to kill her. 3. Her statement was also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 29.04.2023, wherein she stated that she had gone to Pune with Suraj of her own consent and that she wanted to go back home. However, on the same day, her statement was again recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C., wherein she implicated the accused and made the allegations as noticed hereinabove. Consequently, the FIR in question came to be registered against the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that after NEETU RANI 2026.08.20 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT PHHC, CHD CRM-M No.25760 of 2026 -3- lodging of the missing report, the prosecutrix was recovered and her statement was recorded before learned Magistrate under Section 183 of the BNSS (corresponding Section 164 Cr.P.C.), wherein she categorically stated that she had gone to Pune of her own consent and did not implicate the petitioner or any other person. It has been argued that thereafter, on the very same date, the police allegedly recorded her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 180 of the BNSS), wherein she made allegations against the petitioner and gave an entirely different version of the occurrence. According to learned counsel, this material contradiction in the statements of the prosecutrix creates a serious doubt regarding the prosecution version and indicates that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has further been submitted that the prosecutrix has already been examined during the trial as PW-1 and the complainant/father of the prosecutrix has also been examined as PW-3. Thus, the material witnesses in the case have already been examined and there is no possibility of the petitioner influencing their testimony. It has also been submitted that the petitioner has remained in custody for approximately three years and six months. In these circumstances, learned counsel has prayed that the petitioner be enlarged on regular bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant, has opposed the present bail petition. It has been argued that serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner and that the prosecutrix was only 14 years of age at the time of the alleged occurrence. It has, therefore, been contended that NEETU RANI 2026.08.20 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT PHHC, CHD CRM-M No.25760 of 2026 -4- having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations and the tender age of the prosecutrix, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. 6. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record. 7. At this stage, it is relevant to notice that there is a material variation in the statements attributed to the prosecutrix. In her statement recorded before learned Magistrate under Section 183 of the BNSS, she stated that she had gone to Pune of her own consent and did not implicate the petitioner, whereas in the statement allegedly recorded by the police on the same day under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she made allegations against the petitioner. The effect and evidentiary value of these statements would be a matter for consideration during the trial and need not be commented upon in detail at this stage. Further, the prosecutrix has already been examined as PW-1 and the complainant/father of the prosecutrix has also been examined as PW-3. Thus, the material witnesses in the present case have already been examined, thereby substantially reducing the possibility of the petitioner influencing the prosecution evidence. The petitioner has already undergone a prolonged period of incarceration of about three years and four months and the conclusion of the trial may still take some time. 8. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the aforesaid circumstances, particularly the prolonged custody of the petitioner, the material variation in the statements of the prosecutrix and the NEETU RANI 2026.08.20 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT PHHC, CHD CRM-M No.25760 of 2026 -5- fact that the material witnesses have already been examined, persuade this Court to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. 9. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, subject to such conditions as may be imposed in accordance with law. 10. However, nothing observed herein shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. 11. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) 20.08.2026 JUDGE neetu Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No NEETU RANI 2026.08.20 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT PHHC, CHD