JUDGMENT :

NEERJA K. KALSON , J .

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanita, 2023 seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.338 dated 07.11.2025 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 140(3), 351(3), 308(4) of BNS, 2023 and Sections 84 of JJ Act and 12 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Civil Line, Sonipat, Haryana.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 07.11.2025. It is further submitted that the mother of the victim, in her own statement given in writing to the hospital authorities, categorically declined the medical examination of her daughter, stating that no untoward incident had occurred with her.

3. Learned counsel further submits that the victim herself, in her statement recorded under Section 180 BNSS, has not supported the allegations and has specifically stated that the petitioner has not committed any wrongact. It is contended that the present case is false and has been instituted with the sole intention of harassing the petitioner and extorting money by the complainant and her family members. It is further submitted that the investigation in the case stands complete and the challan has already been presented before the learned Trial Court. However, the trial is likely to take considerable time, and no useful purpose would be served by continued incarceration of the petitioner.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition, arguing that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. Learned State counsel further seeks to place on record the custody certificate dated 31.03.2026, which is taken on record.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the available record of the case.

6. The petitioner is a young boy aged 22 years; he was arrested on 08.11.2025, whereafter investigation was carried out and the challan stands presented on 24.12.2025. Charges were framed on 03.02.2026. The prosecution has cited 19 witnesses, out of whom only three have been examined so far. It is indubitable that the petitioner has already undergone incarceration for a period of about 05 months, and the trial is not likely to conclude in the near future. It is pertinent to note that the material witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have turned hostile. In this regard, it will be apposite to place reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as “ Manish Sisodia versus Directorate of Enforcement ”2024 INSC 595; relevant whereof reads as under:-

“50. As observed by this Court, the right to speedy trial and the right to liberty are sacrosanct rights. On denial of these rights, the trial court as well as the High Court ought to have given due weightage to this factor.

51. Recently, this Court had an occasion to consider an application for bail in the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and Another wherein the accused was prosecuted under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. This Court surveyed the entire law right from the judgment of this Court in the cases of Gudikanti Narasimhulu and Others v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh7, Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Others v. State of Punjab, Hussainara Khatoon and Others (I) v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb and Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another. The Court observed thus:

"19. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies ir