##PAGE1##

CRM-M- 29436-2025 (O&M) -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

(112) CRM-M- 29436-2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 23.03.2026

SUNNY @ SUNNI ......Petitioner

Versus STATE OF HARYANA

.....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate and

Ms. Vidhi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Brijesh Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

****

KIRTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)

CRM-6737-2026

Application is allowed as prayed for and the deposition of PW-

1, which is annexed at Annexure P-6, is taken on record subject to all just

exceptions.

MAIN CASE

1. The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 BNSS has been invoked for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.654 dated 17.11.2024 under Sections 351(3), 64 and 87 of BNS and Section 6 of

POCSO Act, 2012 registered at Police Station Old Industrial, Panipat.

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

“Contents of the application are as under: To The SHO Sahab, Police Station Old Industrial. Panipat. Sir. It is requested that I am Mahender son of Shri Prem Chand, resident of Kashyap Colony, Jatal Road (Panipat). 1 have a son and a daughter. My elder daughter xxxxx, age 17 years, went out of the house yesterday on 16.11.2024 at around 4 pm for some work

SWARNJIT SINGH

2026.03.24 11:41 and has not returned till now. I have been searching for her on I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M- 29436-2025 (O&M) -2-

my own and have not found. The appearance of my daughter is as follows: Wheatish complexion, tall face, strong body, wearing a pink colored suit-salwar and has slippers on her feet. My daughter may be searched. Her height is 5 feet 1 inch.

Applicant- Mahender"

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the petitioner, who is a young boy of 21 years, has been falsely implicated in the instant FIR, which was initially lodged as a missing complaint of the prosecutrix, stated to be over 17 years of age, on the statement made by the her father. It is submitted that the petitioner was not named in the FIR, but was subsequently nominated as an accused. However, in her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS, the prosecutrix categorically stated that she had left her house on her own free will. The subsequent adverse statement given by the prosecutrix was evidently made by her under family pressure. It is submitted that there is no cogent evidence on record that points towards the complicity of the petitioner. In fact, the prosecutrix had twice refused to get her medical examination conducted, which was finally conducted after a considerable delay. The UPT test of the prosecutrix was also negative. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has already undergone an actual custody of 01 year, 03 months and 15 days. There is no

other case against him.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He states that the petitioner was actively involved in the commission of the offence. He has filed the custody certificate in Court today and the same is taken on record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone an actual custody of

SWARNJIT SINGH 01 year, 03 months and 15 days. Investigation is complete. Learned State

2026.03.24 11:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M- 29436-2025 (O&M) -3-

counsel, on instructions from the officer concerned, submits that the charges have been framed on 07.04.2025 and out of a total of 17 prosecution witnesses, 01 has been examined. He submits that in view of the serious allegations against the petitioner, he 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:

"21. In bail applications, generally, it has b