IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

276 CRM-M-24224-2025(O&M)

Decided on: 16.09.2025 AAKASH . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus STATE OF HARYANA . . . Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH PRESENT: Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Brijesh Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

None for complainant/victim.

****

KIRTI SINGH , J. (Oral)

1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Section 483 of BNSS for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.333 dated 08.11.2024, under Sections 351(2) and 64(2)(m) of BNS and Section 6 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Quilla Panipat, District Panipat. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case, which was lodged on the complaint moved by the mother of the prosecutrix, alleging therein that the petitioner has committed wrong acts with her daughter. It is submitted that there is a delay of 27 days in registration of the aforesaid FIR. Further, there is no direct evidence to prove the complicity of the petitioner. In fact, the prosecutrix had herself refused to undergo medical examination. Rather, the UPT test of the prosecutrix also turned out to be negative. Even the age of the prosecutrix is disputed, and as per her ossification test, the same has been opined to be between 17 to 18 years. The petitioner, a 20 year old, is a young man of clean antecendents and has already undergone custody period of 10 months and 03 days.

3. Per contra learned State counsel has opposed the bail and submits that the petitioner was actively involved in the commission of the alleged offence. He has filed custody certificate in Court today and the same is taken on record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone actual custody of 10 months and 03 days and there is no other case registered against him. He on instructions from investigating officer submits that charges were framed on 11.02.2025 and out of a total of 18 prosecution witnesses, only 02 i.e. prosecutrix and complainant, have been examined till date. He, however, submits that in view of the serious allegations against the petitioner, petitioner is not entitled to the concession of regular bail.

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

5. From a perusal of the case in hand, it transpires that the petitioner is behind the bars since 13.11.2024. Investigation is complete. The material witnesses stand examined. The final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented before the concerned Court and trial of the case has not made much progress, as charges were framed on 11.02.2025 and out of a total of 18 prosecution witnesses, only 02 have been examined till date. The culpability, if any, would be determined at the time of trial. No useful purpose shall be served by further detention of the accused/petitioner. Keeping the petitioner in further detention without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future, would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India including the right to speedy trial, and is against the principle “Bail is a rule, jail is an exception” as elucidated in the judgment of Apex Court in “Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another”, (2018) 3 SCC 22

6. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing adequate bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. The petitioner shall also abide by the following conditions:-

(I) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

(II) The petitioner will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s).

(III) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

(IV) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which she is accused of, or for commission of which he is suspected.

(V