Bail is the rule and jail is the exception. Pre-trial detention should not be punitive, and courts must balance the nature of accusations against the right to a speedy trial, especially when prolonged incarceration occurs without the prospect of an imminent trial conclusion.

JUDGMENT

KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL)

1. The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 of BNSS has been invoked for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 560 dated 09.09.2024 under Sections 140(3), 137(2), 87, 65(1), 96, 351(2), 3(5) and 61(2) of (Sections 364-A, 363, 366, 376, 366-A, 506, 34, 120-B of IPC) and Section 4 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Samalkha, District Panipat.

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

“To, The Chowki Incharge, Samalkha. Sir, it is submitted that I, Daya Chand son of Sh. Raje Ram, am resident of Rajasthan Colony, Ward No. 16, Samalkha. I have five children. Out of them, 3 are girls and 2 are boys. The youngest daughter is 15 years old. On 09.09.2024 at about 12.10 a.m. she left the house without informing. I tried to search her out on my own level but could not succeed. She looks like; wheatish colour, elongated/long face, thin body, height 5 feet and was bearing suit of yellow colour. You are requested to search my daughter. Thanking you. Applicant Daya Chand, resident of Rajasthan Colony, Ward No. 16, Samalkha, Phone No. 90507 6xxxx dated 09.09.2024.”

3. Mr. Manish Beniwal, Advocate puts in appearance on behalf of the complainant and has filed his power of attorney. The same is taken on record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR was initially registered as a missing person complaint on the statement of the father of the prosecutrix, and only subsequently were allegations introduced that the petitioner, aged 21 years, had enticed the 16-year-old prosecutrix on the false pretext of marriage and committed rape upon her. It is submitted that the petitioner, being well acquainted with the prosecutrix, has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further highlighted that in the first statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 183 BNSS, she denied any wrongful act committed by the petitioner upon her and refused to get herself medically examined; whereas in her subsequent statement dated 06.11.2024, she alleged forcible abduction and sexual assault, thereby making material contradictions in her version. It is further submitted that there is no medical evidence on record to substantiate the allegations leveled against the petitioner, due to her refusal to undergo examination. Learned counsel further submits that the material witnesses have already been examined. Moreover, the co-accused namely Rahul has been granted regular bail by this Court on 19.02.2026 vide CRM-M-29179-2025. The petitioner has undergone custody of 1 year and 7 months and one more case was also registered against the petitioner, wherein he stands acquitted.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned State counsel states that the petitioner was actively involved in the commission of the offence. Learned State counsel has filed custody certificate in Court today and the same is taken on record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone an actual custody of 1 year and 7 months. The learned State counsel, on instructions from the investigating officer concerned, submits that in the present case, charges were framed on 15.04.2025 and out of total 30 prosecution witnesses, only 03 have been examined till date. Learned State counsel submits that in view of the serious allegations against the petitioner, he is not entitled to the concession of regular bail.

6. Hea