IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-10.02.2025 Jasvir Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI Present:- Mr. Harjot Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. P.S. Bhandari, AAG, Punjab.

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI J.(Oral)

1. The present is a first petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.155 dated 01.08.2024 under Section 74 of BNS, 2023 and Sections 8 and 10 of POCSO Act of 2012 registered at Police Station Sadar, District Ludhiana.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that it is a case where the petitioner has been in custody for 06 months and 06 days and the investigation in the case has been completed and thereafter challan has also been presented. He submitted that allegations against the petitioner were with regard to molestation only and so far as the complainant is concerned, she was only a teacher of the prosecutrix and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submitted that considering the custody of the petitioner, he may be considered for the grant of regular bail.

3. On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that, insofar as the custody of the petitioner is concerned, the same is correct. He submitted that it is a case where the prosecutrix was a minor and she was under the care of the petitioner and complainant had informed with regard to the allegations pertaining to the aforesaid molestation of the prosecutrix. He submitted that no prosecution witness has been examined till date and as such, the prosecutrix has not been examined. He further submitted that, considering the allegations levelled against the petitioner, there is a reasonable apprehension that, if the petitioner is released on bail, he may not only abscond or flee from justice but may also influence the witnesses. He also submitted that, in view of the seriousness of the offence, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail.

4. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

5. It is a case where the petitioner has been in custody for about 06 months and 06 days. The prosecutrix is minor of the age of about 17 years. As per learned counsels for the parties, no prosecution witness has been examined till date. After perusing the allegations contained in the FIR against the petitioner, the alleged role of the petitioner and hearing learned counsels for the parties, this Court is of the view that, considering the seriousness of the offence and the stage of the trial where none of the prosecution witnesses have been examined and also considering the apprehension expressed by learned State counsel, this Court does not deem it fit and proper to grant regular bail to the petitioner.

6. Finding no merit in the present petition, the same is hereby dismissed.

7. However, anything observed hereinabove shall not be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and is meant for the purpose of deciding the present petition only.

(JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)

JUDGE

10.02.2025

shweta