CRM-M-32011-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 220 CRM-M-32011-2026 Date of decision: 26.08.2026 Harun @ Anish Khan Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY Present: Ms. Sakshi Khera, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Armaan Dahiya, AAG, Haryana. AARADHNA SAWHNEY , J (ORAL) 1. By virtue of the present petition under Section 483 BNSS, petitioner, an accused in case bearing FIR No.72 dated 25.06.2023 registered against him, for commission of offences punishable under Sections 363,506 IPC and Sections 10 & 17 of POCSO Act (Section 8 of POCSO Act deleted later) registered at Woman Police Station, District Faridabad, has prayed for grant of bail. 2. Relevant facts as emerging from the documents on record be reproduced hereinbelow:- “ Criminal proceedings in the present case were initiated on the basis of complaint dated 25.06.2023 lodged by the victim “JJJ”, aged about 13 years, wherein she stated that her father was working as a cleaner/sweeper and that they are six siblings; she being the second amongst them. She alleged that at about 09:00 p.m. on 24.06.2023, while she was present at her home, she received a call from her friend Anish (petitioner) and went outside to meet him. PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.08.31 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32011-2026 2 Thereafter, they boarded an auto-rickshaw for purchasing a cold drink. However, Anish did not stop the auto-rickshaw and instead took her towards a forested area. Thereafter, he molested her and touched her chest. She requested him not to do anything wrong with her as also that she would raise an alarm but he did not listen to her. She was having her periods at that point in time. Anish dropped her on the road near her house and later left. A person running a tea stall noticed her and informed her father, whereupon she returned home. Primarily with this backdrop, she requested that Anish who has done wrong to her, be caught and legal proceedings be initiated against him. On the basis of said complaint, aforesaid FIR was registered under Section 8 of POCSO Act. Victim was got medico-legally examined on the same day i.e 25.06.2023. Before the Doctor, she denied that her private parts had been penetrated. She stated that she had gone to meet Anish at 09.00 PM on 24.06.2023 and had returned back at about 12.30 AM on 25.06.2023. On the same day, she was produced before the learned Illaqa Magistrate for getting her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C (Section 183 BNSS) wherein she stated that Anish used to reside in their locality earlier but he had vacated the room off late. At about 09.00 PM on 24.06.2023, he came on an auto and told her to bring a Pepsi from the shop. As soon as she left for the shop, her mouth was covered and she was bundled in the said Auto, which was being driven by some other person. Anish (P) threatened her. They made her smell something after which she became unconscious. She was taken somewhere but she did not remember as to what was done to her. At about 12.30 AM at night, she was dumped in a street near her house. A shopkeeper running a tea stall noticed her and informed her father, who brought her back home. She further stated that, at that time, her clothes were covered with black-coloured substance. During the course of investigation, Sections 363,506 IPC and Sections 10 & 17 of POCSO Act were added and Section 8 of POCSO Act was deleted. On 26.06.2023, petitioner was arrested, who during the course of interrogation confessed to his involvement in the commission of crime and also disclosed the name of co-accused as Gaurav, who was also arrested on the same day. Ossification test of the victim PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.08.31 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32011-2026 3 “JJJ” was got conducted as her parents could not produce any document pertaining to her date of birth. As per the ossification report, the age of the victim was assessed to be 13 years. Statement of witnesses were recorded at various stages. On culmination of investigation, challan in all respect was prepared and presented before the Court.” As per status report dated 23.07.2026 filed by way of an affidavit of Kailash Chand, HPS, ACP, Old Faridabad, petitioner and co-accused have been charge sheeted under Sections 363,506 IPC and Section 10 & 17 of POCSO Act. Out of 18 cited prosecution witnesses, three including the victim “JJJ” have been examined. Petitioner, who was arrested on 26.06.2023 moved an application for grant of bail before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Faridabad. Same came to be dismissed vide order dated 11.12.2025. Aggrieved of which, present petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the glaring contradictions in the statement of the victim at different stages of the proceedings clearly indicate false implication of the petitioner, who is aged about 20 years. Elaborating further, learned counsel submits that, in the complaint lodged by the victim on 25.06.2023, she had alleged that the petitioner had made her board an auto-rickshaw and had taken her to a forest area, where he molested her, and thereafter dropped her on a street near her house. However, on the same day, when the victim was produced before the learned Illaqa Magistrate, she materially changed her version by alleging that two persons were present in the auto- rickshaw, who made her smell some substance, whereafter she became unconscious and was thus unable to recollect what had been done to her. It is contended that these material contradictions, since go to the root of the PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.08.31 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32011-2026 4 prosecution case, render the testimony of the victim wholly unreliable and make her version susceptible to serious doubt. Learned counsel next submits that, in any event, both the victim and her sister have already been examined before the trial Court therefore, the possibility of the petitioner influencing or intimidating them or otherwise tampering with the prosecution evidence stands substantially ruled out. It is also contended that, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has been charge- sheeted under Sections 363 and 506 IPC and Sections 10 and 17 of the POCSO Act, taking note of incarceration period already undergone by him and coupled with the fact that the likelihood of completion of trial in the near future is quite remote as out of 18 prosecution witnesses, only 03 have been examined, a lenient view deserves to be taken in his favour and his further incarceration 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 contends that the period of incarceration having been already undergone by the petitioner, by itself, cannot constitute a ground for taking a lenient view in his favour, particularly when the prosecution witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. In the light of seriousness and gravity of the allegations levelled by the victim in her statement recorded on oath in the Court on 31.01.2025, no case for grant of bail is made out, for if extended the concession of bail, there is every likelihood of him (P) overawing the complainant and related witnesses and fleeing from the process of justice by not appearing in the Court. Dismissal of the petition has been prayed for. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties perused the documents on record. PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.08.31 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32011-2026 5 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. 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 PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.08.31 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32011-2026 6 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. In Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 609, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when a trial gets prolonged, it is not open to the prosecution to oppose bail of the accused-undertrial on the ground that the charges are very serious. A constitutional court cannot be restrained from granting bail on account of restrictive statutory provisions in a penal statute if it finds that the right of the accused-undertrial under Article 21 has been infringed. In that event, such statutory restrictions would not come in the way. 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. 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 PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.08.31 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32011-2026 7 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. In view of the settled proposition of law as referred above and considering the fact that both the victim and her sister have already been examined and that completion of trial in the near future is quite remote as out of 18 prosecution witnesses, only 03 have been examined, but without adverting to the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice the trial, this Court is of the opinion that petitioner, who has been in custody since 26.06.2023, 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 trial Court/Duty Magistrate 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 PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.08.31 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32011-2026 8 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. 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. 26.08.2026 ( AARADHNA SAWHNEY ) manoj JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.08.31 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document