IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 23.03.2026 GURSEWAK SINGH ......Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Ms. Jainika Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Luvinder Sofat, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

Mr. S. Singla, Advocate for the complainant.

****

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. 94 dated 09.07.2024 under Section 74 of BNS and Section 10 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Kotbhai, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, Punjab.

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

“Statement of xxxx daughter of Gurpreet Singh, resident of Manakpur (Sirsa), now Bathinda, age about 11-1/2 years, M.No. 903454xxxx, stated that I am a resident of the above said address, my mother xxxx had gone to Gidderbaha. On 31.05.2024, at around 5.30 pm evening, my maternal grandmother had gone to the house of someone for attending the birthday. I was alone at home, I was being playing with walker, then in the mean time my maternal uncle Gursewak Singh son of Sukhdev Singh, resident of Doda, called out to me, we had come to stay at his house in Doda. He said, "Preetu, come inside to find the motorcycle's belongings". Then my maternal uncle told me to come inside to the store room. Then he started to open my clothes with force, I opened my salwar and put on my shirt up. Then he started to touch my chest. I said, "Mama, what are you doing?" He said, "Be quiet, nothing will happen" In the mean time, my mother came from upstairs and then he pushed my mother and ran out. My aunt was also with my mother. The statement is correct. A case should be registered. Correct/- xxxx above, Sd/- xxxx, mother, SD/-

Deepka Rani, SI, Chief Officer, Police Station Kotbhai, Dated 09.07.2024.”

3. Mr. S. Singla, Advocate puts in appearance on behalf of the complainant and files his memo of appearance, which is taken on record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, aged about 26 years, has been falsely implicated in the present case solely on the basis of the statement of the prosecutrix, who has alleged that the petitioner committed sexual assault and subjected her to inappropriate physical contact. It is submitted that the petitioner is the maternal uncle of the prosecutrix, and that there exists a prior dispute between the petitioner and his sister, who is the mother of the prosecutrix, with respect to the division of family property, for which reason, the instant FIR was malafidely got registered. It is further submitted that no cogent evidence has come on record to substantiate the allegations against the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has already undergone an actual custody of 01 year 08 months & 10 days and has clean antecedents.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned State counsel states that the petitioner was actively involved in the commission of the offence. He 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 01 year 08 months & 10 days. The learned State counsel, on instructions from official concerned, submits that in the present case, charges were framed on 23.09.2024 and out of total 16 prosecution witnesses, 05 have been examined till date. He submits that in view of the serious allegations against the petitioner, he is not entitled to the concession of regular bail.

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

7. Before proceeding further, 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:

"21.In bail applications, general