CRM-M-36597-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-36597-2026 Date of decision: 02.09.2026 Ashish Tiwari ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY Present: Mr. Lakshay Bector, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gautam Thapar, Sr. DAG, Punjab. AARADHNA SAWHNEY , J (ORAL) 1. Prayer in the instant second petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS is for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.41 dated 19.05.2025 under Section 69 of BNS registered at P.S Division No.4, District Ludhiana. 2. Relevant facts as emerging from the documents on record be noticed hereinbelow: Present criminal proceedings were initiated on the basis of complaint dated 19.05.2025 filed by complainant ‘KKK’, pointing therein that she and accused Ashish Kumar were working together in the same factory. In 2022, they developed a friendship and started interacting with each other quite frequently. Their casual friendship continued for two years and thereafter on the insistence of petitioner, she (c) took a room on rent where petitioner used to come over. By extending false promise of marriage, petitioner made physical relations with her on numerous occasions. Initially, she did not take up the matter with accused but later when she became suspicious, she questioned and reminded him of his promise. It is at this juncture that accused started making lame excuses. To her utter surprise and shock, she came to know that the accused was already married and was also the father of a child. She was extremely depressed and requested petitioner to abide by his promise but petitioner flatly refused. In February 2025, she came to know that she was 7 months pregnant. Refusal of accused had put her in a very awkward position. Primarily with this backdrop, she requested the MANOJ KUMAR 2026.09.03 20:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36597-2026 2 Authorities to catch hold of accused, who had maintained physical relations with her on the pretext of false promise of marriage, as also to initiate appropriate proceedings against him. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, present FIR came to be registered. During the course of investigation, complainant was got medico- legally examined. Her vaginal swabs and blood samples were taken. Petitioner, who was arrested on 19.05.2025 admitted to his involvement in the commission of offence during the course of interrogation and was subjected to medico-legal examination. His blood samples along with the sample handed over by the Doctor after examining complainant were sent to FSL by the I.O for DNA analysis. The report reads as under: “From the observations, it is concluded that: The genetic profile of Mr. Ashish Kumar is consistent as being of the biological father of the Baby of Pooja. Ms. Pooja is the biological mother of the Baby. Human semen and male DNA was not detected on Vaginal Swabs and Smear Slides stated to be of Ms. Pooja.” Complainant was produced before the learned Illaqa Magistrate for getting her statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS wherein she reiterated her allegations. Her ultra sound revealed that she was 28 weeks 05 days pregnant. Statement of witnesses were recorded at various stages of investigation. Upon culmination thereof, challan complete in all respect was prepared and filed in the Court. Petitioner stands charge sheeted under Section 69 of BNSS. Out of 17 cited prosecution witnesses, 08 including the victim stands examined. His first petition seeking the similar relief was dismissed as withdrawn from this Court vide CRM-M-41675-2025 on 05.02.2026. After the dismissal of the 2nd application filed by the petitioner seeking concession of bail, by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ludhiana vide order dated MANOJ KUMAR 2026.09.03 20:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36597-2026 3 25.05.2026, present second petition seeking similar relief was filed by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner, aged about 35 years with clean past antecedents, has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the petitioner and the complainant were admittedly working in the same factory and were well known to each other. Initially, they were merely casual friends; however, with the passage of time, their friendship graduated to a higher level and they eventually developed an emotional bond leading to physical intimacy. Learned counsel further submits that the complainant was well aware of the family background of the petitioner and knew that he was a married man as also that he had a child. She herself went ahead knowing fully well the consequences/fall out of this relationship. Learned counsel further submits that the plea taken by complainant that she was unaware about the marital status of petitioner stands falsified in view of her own admission made during cross-examination where while appearing as PW-2 before the learned trial Court, she admitted that ‘earlier accused was residing with his wife, but on her request, he started residing with her on the basis of mutual understanding. In view of the aforesaid admission made by the complainant herself, learned counsel contends that further incarceration of petitioner, who has been in custody since 19.05.2025, would serve no useful purpose, moreso when the likelihood of completion of trial in the near future is quite remote. It is further the contention of learned counsel that when the earlier petition bearing CRM-M-41675-2025 filed before this Court seeking concession of bail was withdrawn, the material witnesses had not been examined. Subsequently, complainant and related witnesses stand examined. In the light of MANOJ KUMAR 2026.09.03 20:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36597-2026 4 aforesaid ‘changed circumstances’, prayer for allowing the petition has been made. 4. Per contra, while opposing the prayer for grant of bail, learned State counsel contends that in the light of seriousness and gravity of allegations levelled against the petitioner, who emotionally and physically tortured complainant, a young woman on various occasions by extending false promise of marriage, as a consequence of which she (c) became pregnant and gave birth to his child (as per DNA report), no case for grant of bail is made out. Dismissal of the present petition has, thus, 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. 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 MANOJ KUMAR 2026.09.03 20:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36597-2026 5 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 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 MANOJ KUMAR 2026.09.03 20:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36597-2026 6 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 period of incarceration having been already undergone by the petitioner, whose past antecedents are stated to be quite clean and taking note of the fact that material witness of prosecution story i.e complainant stands 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 19.05.2025, deserves to be extended the concession of bail as the likelihood of completion of trial in near future is quite remote for out of 17 cited prosecution witnesses, only 08 stand examined. Thus, 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. To allay the apprehension of the prosecution that, upon being released on bail, the petitioner may overawe or influence the complainant and other prosecution witnesses or may evade the process of law by remaining absent from the proceedings before the learned Trial Court, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of bail to petitioner by imposing strict conditions. 8. Resultantly, petitioner is granted the concession of bail subject to his furnishing two local bail/surety bonds 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. MANOJ KUMAR 2026.09.03 20:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36597-2026 7 (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 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. 02.09.2026 ( AARADHNA SAWHNEY ) manoj JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No MANOJ KUMAR 2026.09.03 20:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document