IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: September 22, 2025 Harvinder ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL ***

Present: - Mr.Tarun Singla, Advocate and Mr.Ashim Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Mohit Chaudhary, AAG, Haryana.

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J.

1. Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.291 dated 17.11.2024 registered under Sections 127(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (Section 4 of POCSO Act added lateron), at Police Station Civil Lines, District Rohtak.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution are that the FIR was lodged on the statement of Yashapal, who alleged that his son aged about 16 years was allured by the petitioner, taken to his house, made to consume alchohol and then his private parts were inappropriately touched by the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no concern with the said offence. He contends that the FIR was lodged with a delay of about 25 hours and the petitioner was not named in the FIR. Referring to the testimonies of the victim and his father (Annexure P-4 and P-5) during trial, it is submitted that both the material witnesses have not supported the prosecution version and have been declared hostile. The remaining witnesses are official witnesses and thus there is no apprehension of the petitioner extending threats to any witness. The petitioner is behind bars since 21.12.2024. He further submits that the trial will take a long time to conclude and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind bars. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Learned State counsel, who has appeared on advance notice of the petition, has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record. He has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after perusing the record of the case, it is evident that the petitioner is in custody for the last 9 months and the alleged victim and the complainant have not supported the prosecution case during trial; the trial may take a long time to conclude, no useful purpose would be served by detaining him in further custody. 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.

7. Reliance is placed upon in Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein, Hon’ble Apex Court has held that keeping somebody behind the bars, till his guilt is proved, for an indefinite period amounts to infringement of his right to life and liberty, as enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution of India and is against the principle “bail is a rule” and “jail is an exception”.

8. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/CJM concerned. It is clarified that nothing stated herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

September 22, 2025 ( RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL )

JUDGE

gian