Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(P&H) 1828

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
KIRTI SINGH, J.
XXXXXXXXXXXX – Petitioner
Versus
XXXXXXXXXXXX – Respondent
CRM-M-73773-2025(O&M)
Decided On : 16-04-2026

Advocates appeared:
for the petitioner:Mr. Munish Garg, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Guramrit Kaur, DAG, Punjab.

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception. Courts must balance the nature of accusations against the right to a speedy trial and the period of incarceration already undergone. Prolonged pre-trial detention without a near-term prospect of trial conclusion warrants the grant of bail.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 61(2), 64, 87, 137(2) - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 5, 6, 17 - Regular bail - Principles governing grant of bail - Object of bail is to secure appearance of accused at trial and not punitive - Deprivation of liberty must be considered punishment unless required to ensure attendance - Bail is the rule and jail is the exception - Right to speedy trial is integral to personal liberty. (Paras 6, 9)

(B) Bail - Factors for consideration - Nature of accusation, stage of trial, antecedents of accused, and likelihood of absconding or influencing justice - Prolonged incarceration without prospect of trial conclusion in near future warrants grant of bail - Hostile testimony of material witness is a factor to be considered at this stage. (Paras 8, 9)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought regular bail in a criminal case involving allegations of enticing a minor for marriage. The petitioner had been in custody for over seventeen months. The trial was progressing slowly, with only a small fraction of prosecution witnesses examined. The victim had turned hostile during trial proceedings and had entered into a marriage with a co-accused.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future and that the petitioner had already undergone significant incarceration. Given the hostile testimony of the primary witness and the absence of evidence suggesting the petitioner would abscond or tamper with evidence, the court found continued detention unjustified.

Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail considering the period of incarceration, the slow pace of the trial, and the fact that the primary witness has turned hostile.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that pre-trial incarceration should not be punitive. Balancing the nature of the accusation with the right to a speedy trial and the current status of the evidence, the court concluded that the petitioner's continued detention would not serve the interests of justice.

Result: Petition allowed; petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail subject to conditions.

Table of Content
1. summary of fir and case initiation details. (Para 1 , 2)
2. parties argument regarding custody and bail. (Para 3 , 4)
3. legal analysis and supreme court precedents on bail. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
4. establishment of bail necessity based on incarceration and trial pace. (Para 9)
5. final order granting bail with stipulated conditions. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)

JUDGMENT

KIRTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)

CRM-12268-2026

Application is allowed and document annexed at Annexure P-12 is taken on record subject to all just exceptions.

MAIN CASE

1. The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 has been invoked for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.0255 dated 13.10.2024 under Sections 137 (2), 87 of , 2023 ( Section 64 , 61(2) of , 2023 and Sections 5 , 6/17 of POCSO Act added later on), registered at Police Station Sadar Mansa, District Mansa.

2. The translated version of the FIR is reproduced below:-

“Copy of statement of Makhan Singh son of Ramjit Singh son of Santa Singh, resident of Khokhar Khurd aged about 40 years, mobile No.97812-36312, stated that I am resident of the abovesaid address and I am doing the work of painting and I am contractor of the said work. I have two children. My elder girl is 17-1/2 years old whose date of birth is 04.04.2007. The youngest one is Arshdeep Singh. Yesterday on 12.10.2024, I have gone to my work and my wife xxxxx and my son had gone to Mansa at

12:00 due to some domestic work. When at 2:30 PM my wife and my son reached back house then my daughter xxxxx was not present in the house. regarding this my wife told me and I came back from my work. Then we started searching for the girl. Till now we are looking for the girl in the village and our relatives but the girl xxxxx was not found. Now we have full faith that some unknown person has enticed my girl on the pretext of solemnizing marriage with her. Legal action be taken against the persons who have enticed my daughter xxxxx. I have got recorded statement, which is correct. Sd/- Makhan Singh. Dated: 13.10.2024”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case on the allegation that he aided the co-accused Harpreet Singh in enticing the victim on the pretext of marriage. It is submitted that there is no cogent evidence on record against the petitioner. Moreover, the victim has been duly examined before the learned trial Court on 11.04.2025 (Annexure P-6), wherein she has not supported the case of the prosecution and has turned hostile. In fact, she has even solemnized marriage with co-accused Harpreet Singh. It is further submitted that vide common order dated 31.10.2025 passed by this Court in CRM-M- 26759-2025 and CRM-M-26763-2025, co-accused Harpreet Singh @ Harry and Gursewak Singh @ Gagandeep Singh have been granted the concession of regular bail. He submits that the petitioner has already undergone an actual custody of 01 year, 05 months and 08 days and there is no other criminal case registered against her.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. She states that the petitioner was actively involved in the commission of the offence. She has filed the custody certificate in Court today which are taken on record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone an actual custody of 01 year, 05 months and 08 days. Investigation is complete. Learned State counsel submits that the charges have been framed on 10.02.2025 and out of a total of 25 prosecution witnesses, 03 have been examined. She submits that in view of the serious allegations against the petitioner, she is not entitled to the concession of regular bail.

5. Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

6. Before proceeding, a gainful reference can be made to the observations passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI , (2012) 1 SCC 40, relevant paras whereof reads thus