CRM-M-44966-2026(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 226 CRM-M-44966-2026 (O&M) Date of decision:02.09.2026 RAJENDER …. Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER …. Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMARI Present : Mr. Sunil Goswami, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Atul Gaur, A.A.G., Haryana. **** RAMESH KUMARI , J. (oral) 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS (erstwhile Section 439 of Cr.P.C.) by the petitioner for grant of regular bail as the petitioner has been implicated in criminal case arising out of First Information Report as detailed hereinunder:- FIR No. Dated Sections Police Station 121 16.08.2025 137(2) , 96, 127(4), 351(3), 3(5) of BNS (erstwhile Sections 363, 366-A, 344, 506 and 34 IPC) Sections 6 & 17 of POCSO Act (Section 127(4), 351(3), 3(5) of BNS and Section 6 & 17 of POCSO Act added later on) Alewa, District Jind POOJA SAINI 2026.09.03 13:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-M-44966-2026(O&M) -2- 2. Custody certificate dated 01.09.2026 filed by the learned State counsel is taken on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has not committed any offence. The main accused in this case is Shubham who enticed away the victim aged about 16 years. He also submits that there are two victims in this case. One was about 17 years old and another was 15 years old. They in their initial statement recorded under Sections 183 BNSS had not levelled any allegations against anybody. Victim aged about 17 years specifically stated that she along with her uncle’s daughter (second victim) and her boyfriend (main accused Shubham) went to Jind and from there they boarded a train to Delhi and then travelled from Delhi to Agra and thereafter from Agar to Mathura. At Mathura, first victim and Shubham (main accused) made the second victim to board another train and she reached Karnal. First victim and her boyfriend told her that they would stay back in Mathura. After reaching Karnal, she went to Gurudwara and wandered thereon her own. Police questioned her, whereupon she disclosed the names of her family members and then her family came and took her to home. She also specifically stated that nothing wrong had been committed with her. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first victim specifically in her statement recorded on 26.11.2025 under Section 183 BNSS stated that she went with accused Shubham at her POOJA SAINI 2026.09.03 13:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-M-44966-2026(O&M) -3- own will. She intended to marry him and want to live with him. Her parents were not allowing her for marriage. They also threatened her and she specifically stated that she does not want to return to her parental home. Thereafter, she was put under pressure and her statement on 23.12.2025 was recorded wherein she had levelled allegations against co- accused Shubham and also levelled false allegations against the present petitioner and her wife that Shubham kept her in the house of the petitioner. The petitioner under bona fide belief that the victim was an adult and also friend of Shubham, gave them shelter in his house. It is further submitted that the statement of the complainant has already been recorded before the learned trial Court and he did not support the case of the prosecution. The petitioner is in custody since 19.05.2026 and he has not committed any offence and he had no knowledge that the victim was minor. 5. The report from the learned trial Court has already been received that the statement of the complainant who is father of the victim has been recorded. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed on record copy of statement of complainant, wherein he did not support the case of the prosecution. The allegations against the petitioner are subject matter of trial. The petitioner is in custody since 19.05.2026. Both the victims in their first statement did not level any allegation against the present petitioner. Therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case and POOJA SAINI 2026.09.03 13:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-M-44966-2026(O&M) -4- specially keeping in view that the trial would take long time to conclude, the instant petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate, subject to 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. POOJA SAINI 2026.09.03 13:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-M-44966-2026(O&M) -5- (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. 6. 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. 7. 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. (RAMESH KUMARI) 02.09.2026 JUDGE pooja saini Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No. Whether reportable : Yes/No POOJA SAINI 2026.09.03 13:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment