##PAGE1##

CRM-M- 37269-2025 (O&M) -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

(116) CRM-M- 37269-2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 23.03.2026

DANISH ......Petitioner

Versus STATE OF HARYANA

.....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Ashdeep Singh, Advocate and Mr. Krishan Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Brijesh Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

****

KIRTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)

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.0279 dated 06.08.2024 under Sections 127(6), 238 of BNS and Sections 6, 17 of POCSO Act, 2012 registered at Police Station Faridabad Central, District

Faridabad.

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

“To, In-charge of Police post, SEC-15, Faridabad, Sir, it is requested that myself xxxxx S/O Bicchu, resident of xxxxxx, Police Station Madhavganj, District Hardoi (UP), currently a tenant of Vinod Chandela, village Budhena, Faridabad, and working in Escort Company, SEC 13, Faridabad. I have one son and 3 daughters. My eldest daughter, xxxxx, used to work in H.NO 809, SECTOR-15, FARIDABAD. My daughter, xxxxx (18 years), went somewhere without informing anyone on 5/8/2024 at around 1.30 PM, and she has not been found even after a lot of searching. We have been searching for her on our own till now. Please search for my daughter, xxxxx. Appearance of my daughter is fair complexion, round face, thin body. mark of injury on forehead, height 5 feet, age 18 (years) wearing green

colour suit salwar and white colour shoes."

SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.03.23 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M- 37269-2025 (O&M) -2-

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case, which was initially lodged as a missing complaint filed by the father of the prosecutrix. It is submitted that the petitioner was not named in the FIR, but was subsequently nominated as an accused on the statement of the prosecutrix. Learned counsel contends that the allegations of sexual assault are not levelled against the petitioner, who is alleged to have captured an objectionable video of the prosecutrix. However, there is no cogent evidence on record to substantiate the same. In fact, it is submitted that the prosecutrix has been duly examined as a prosecution witness, wherein she did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile. Reference accordingly is made to the testimony of the prosecutrix, which is submitted in Court and is ordered to be placed on record. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has already undergone an actual custody of 01 year, 04 months and 13 days. There is no other case against him and has clean antecedents. The co- accused has been granted concession of regular bail by this Court in CRM-

M-24082-2025 on 16.05.2025 (Annexure P-2).

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 01 years, 04 months and 13 days. Investigation is complete. Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Puran Singh, submits that the charges

SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.03.23 17:42 I attest to the accurachy aanvde been framed on 03.10.2025 and out of a total of 26 prosecution integrity of this document

CRM-M- 37269-2025 (O&M) -3-

witnesses, one 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, (2