CRM-M-20404-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 217 CRM-M-20404-2026 Date of decision: 27.08.2026 Sanjeev Kumar Paswan ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY Present: Mr. Pawan Attri, 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.105 dated 21.06.2025 registered against him, for commission of offences punishable under Sections 137 & 96 of BNS (Section 61,64(2)(m),238 of BNS and Section 6 of POCSO Act added later) at Police Station Siwan, District Kaithal, has prayed for grant of bail. 2. Relevant facts as emerging from the documents on record be noticed hereinbelow:- “Criminal proceedings in the present case were set into motion on the basis of a complaint dated 21.06.2025 lodged by the complainant ‘SSS’ son of ‘FFF’ resident of Chandigarh pointing therein that he has a daughter, namely ‘JJJ’ aged about 16 years and a son, who is 14 years old. One ‘PPP’ son of Kalu Paswan, resident of Patna (Bihar) was residing in their neighbourhood along with his wife, who used to keep an evil eye on his daughter ‘JJJ’. He had warned ‘PPP’ after which the boy apologised and assured that he would not repeat such conduct. On 11.06.2025, he (c) left his daughter ‘JJJ’ at the house of her paternal aunt R/o Siwan. At about 04.30 PM on 20.06.2025, her daughter ‘JJJ’ left from his sister’s home. When he came to know about the same, he made inquiries at his own level and tried to trace the whereabouts of the minor girl, but remained unsuccessful. He further learnt that ‘PPP’ had also been absent from MANOJ KUMAR 2026.08.29 18:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-20404-2026 2 his house since 20.06.2025. Consequently, he suspected that ‘PPP’ had enticed his minor daughter and had taken her away by misleading her. With this backdrop, he requested the police Authorities to trace whereabouts of his daughter as also to catch hold of all those, who are responsible in this act and initiate appropriate proceedings against them. On the basis of said complaint, present FIR came to be registered.” On 10.09.2025, the daughter of the complainant, namely ‘JJJ’ was recovered from village in Bihar and was identified by the family members. On the same day, petitioner-accused was also caught, who during interrogation confessed to his involvement in the commission of offence. On the following day i.e on 11.09.2025, the victim was counselled and was produced before learned Illaqa Magistrate for getting her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C (now Section 183 of BNSS). She was also got medico-legally examined at the Government Hospital, Kaithal. Sealed parcels handed over by the Doctor were taken into police possession for sending them to FSL. As per FSL report, Human Semen was detected on Exhibit 1a (Pant Plazo). However semen could not be detected on rest of Exhibits. During investigation, Sections 64(2)(m) of BNS and Section 6 of POCSO Act were added. Rough site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared. Petitioner retracted from his earlier disclosure statement and disclosed that he (P) had evil eye on complainant’s daughter and that he and his brother-in-law Sukha @ Chintu took the minor girl on their motorcycle from Siwan and stayed in a rented accommodation in Jalbeda. Thereafter, two of them i.e petitioner and victim travelled to Faridabad and Bihar. Victim also stayed at the house of his maternal grand-mother. He (P) confessed to have violated the person of victim on many occasions. On 14.09.2025, Sukha @ Chintu was arrested, who also admitted to his involvement in the commission of crime. Admittedly, he was granted the MANOJ KUMAR 2026.08.29 18:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-20404-2026 3 concession of bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Kaithal vide order dated 24.12.2025. Statement of witnesses were recorded at various stages of investigation, on culmination thereof, challan complete in all respect was prepared and filed before the Court. After the petitioner was charge sheeted, various prosecution witnesses including the victim stand examined, who has supported the case of prosecution. Petitioner, who was arrested on 10.09.2025 moved an application for grant of bail before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Special Court, Kaithal. The same was dismissed vide order dated 11.03.2026. Aggrieved of which present petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner, a young boy aged about 20 years with clean antecedents, has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the relationship between the petitioner and his wife was not cordial. Since the petitioner and the victim were residing in the same vicinity, they started interacting with each other and over a period of time, developed an emotional bond. They intended to spend their lives together; however, upon complainant-father coming to know of their relationship, he reprimanded the petitioner. Thereafter, victim left her parental home of her own accord. The two of them went to Ismailabad, District Kurukshetra, thereafter stayed in Lucknow and then headed to Bihar where stayed in the house of his maternal grandmother. During this period, she neither informed her parents or the police authorities nor raised any alarm. It was later due to parental pressure that she changed her stance and levelled baseless allegations against petitioner. It is further submitted that even as per the medical report dated 12.09.2025, the allegation of sexual intercourse with the victim could not be medically confirmed. Learned counsel next contends that the facts of the case as brought on record speak for themselves and clearly lead to an inference that the petitioner MANOJ KUMAR 2026.08.29 18:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-20404-2026 4 has been unnecessarily dragged in the present case only to extract illegal monetary benefit from him. Moreover, in the wake of star witnesses of prosecution story having been already examined, further incarceration of the petitioner, a young boy with clean past antecedents would not serve any useful purpose, as the likelihood of completion of trial in the near future is quite remote, for still only 07 out of cited 19 prosecution witnesses have been examined, 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. 4. Per contra, while opposing the request for grant of bail, learned State counsel contends that in the light of seriousness and gravity of the allegations levelled by the victim, who has been quite consistent in her stand at all the stages of the case and has reiterated her allegation, even in her statement recorded on oath in the Court on 11.09.2025, no case for grant of bail is made out, for if extended the concession of bail, there is every likelihood of him 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. 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. MANOJ KUMAR 2026.08.29 18:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-20404-2026 5 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 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 MANOJ KUMAR 2026.08.29 18:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-20404-2026 6 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. 7. In view of the settled proposition of law as referred above and considering the fact that star witness of the prosecution story has 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, whose past antecedents are clean and who has been in custody since 10.09.2025, 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 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, she is an accused, or for commission of which he is suspected of. MANOJ KUMAR 2026.08.29 18:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-20404-2026 7 (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. 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. 27.08.2026 ( AARADHNA SAWHNEY ) manoj JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No MANOJ KUMAR 2026.08.29 18:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document