IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 29.10.2025 Lovelesh ........Petitioner versus State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present: Mr. Durgesh Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, 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 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.249 dated 06.04.2021 registered under Sections 363 & 366-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 506 of IPC were added later on) at Police Station Sector-10, Gurugram.

2. Learned State counsel submits that the victim and the complainant have been informed about the pendency of the present petition vide notice dated 14.09.2025. However, none has put in appearance on their behalf.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 06.11.2021, father of the victim moved a written complaint to the police stating therein that when he returned home at about 09:00 p.m. from his work, he did not found his daughter, who is 14 years of age, at home. He tried to search her in his neighbourhood but could not find her anywthere. On his complaint, the instant FIR was registered and investigation was carried out. During investigation, the victim was got recovered from Gwalior (Madhya Pradesh). The victim was provided counseling from Legal Advisor and her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded. On the basis of her statement, Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 506 of IPC were added. The victim was got medico legally examined and her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was got recorded. As no birth record of the victim was available with the complainant, therefore, the victim was subjected to Ossification Test from Government Hospital, Gurugram whereby her age was estimated between 15 to 17 years.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the relationship between the petitioner and the victim was consensual in nature and this fact has been admitted by the victim in her statement recorded on 14.09.2021 under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugram, wherein she stated that she was in touch with the petitioner and she wanted to marry him but her parents were not agreeing. She was advised by the petitioner that since she is not of marriageable age of 18 years, therefore, she should wait. However, on her insistence and with her own consent, she accompanied the petitioner and both went to Gawaliar, (Madhya Pradesh). Even thereafter, she also told her parents that she is happy with the petitioner. He further submits that now the victim has improved her version in her testimony recorded before the Trial Court as PW2, wherein now it has been added that the petitioner committed rape upon the victim without her consent. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deshraj alias Musa Vs. State of Rajasthan and another : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2709, whereby in similar circumstances bail was granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. To the similar effect is the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Bail Appln. 2419/2023 – Sahil Vs.

The State of Nct of Delhi decided on 14.08.2024

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is behind the bars since 02.09.2021 and is not involved in any other case. He submits that the trial is moving at snail's pace due to which the petitioner is in custody for a period of more than four years. He further submits that the petitioner was earlier granted interim bail on medical ground from 03.05.2025 to 02.06.2025 as he suffered from tuberculosis and he had surrendered before the Jail Authorities on 03.06.2025. He also submits that investigati