IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

211 Date of decision : 08.10.2025 Amandeep .......Petitioner versus State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present: Mr. Sanchit Punia, Advocate the petitioner.

Ms. Priyanka Sadar, Senior D.A.G., Haryana.

None for the complainant.

*****

NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.640 dated 03.12.2022 registered under Sections 346, 363, 366A & 376(2)(n) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 at Police Station Narnaund, District Hansi.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 03.12.2022, brother of the victim made a complaint to the police alleging therein that on 02.12.2022, his minor sister had gone to the village School but did not return. They tried to search her but could not find her. On the basis of the said complaint, the instant FIR was registered.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the instant FIR was registered on the basis of the complaint submitted by the brother of the victim, wherein it has been alleged that the victim is missing. Thereafter, on 22.02.2023, the victim was recovered and her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hansi, wherein she stated that she had gone with the petitioner with her own free will and wanted to live with him. She further stated that she is under aged, therefore, she did not perform marriage with the petitioner and she does not want to go with her mother. He further submits that the victim refused to get her medically examined and the mother of the victim, who has been examined before the Trial Court as PW-6, has not supported the case of the prosecution and has deposed that her daughter was never kidnapped and raped by the petitioner and was also not wrongfully confined by him and she has no complaint/grievance against the petitioner. He further submits that the victim, who has been examined before the Trial Court as PW-5, has changed her version and has levelled allegations of rape against the petitioner in her statement recorded before the Trial Court. He has pointed out certain contradictions made in the statements of the victim. He further submits that now the matter has been reconciled between the petitioner and the victim and the compromise has been effected between them on 22.05.2025 (Annexure A-1). The affidavits of the complainant i.e. brother of the victim and her mother has also been annexed as Annexure A-2 and A-3.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is behind the bars since 08.05.2023 and he is not involved in any other case. He also submits that the investigation in the present case is complete; challan stands presented; charges have been framed and out of total 17 prosecution witnesses, only 08 have been examined so far. The trial is likely to take a considerable time to conclude and therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner behind the bars.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel, while referring to the averments made in the status report, has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the ground that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. However, she could not refute the factual position that out of total 17 prosecution witnesses, 08 have been examined so far. She has also filed custody certificate dated 06.10.2025 in the Court which is taken on record. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner is behind the bars since more than last two years and four months. Custody certificate further shows that the petitioner is not involved in any other case.

6.