IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on : 16.10.2025 Pronounced on : 03.11.2025 Ajesh Kumar @ Aju ........Petitioner versus State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Argued by : Ms. Kashish Sahni, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, A.A.G., Haryana.

Mr. Tushar Gautam, Advocate 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.36 dated 30.01.2024 registered under Section 365 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Sections 363 & 366-A of IPC were added and Section 365 of IPC was deleted later on) at Police Station Naraingarh, Ambala.

2. Status report by way of an affidavit of Sh. Suraj Chawla, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, (Hqs.) Ambala, on behalf of the respondent-State, filed in the Registry is taken on record.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 30.01.2024, father of the victim made a complaint to the police stating therein that on 29.01.2024 at about 7:30 a.m., his daughter, who is 17½ years old, had gone for a morning walk and thereafter, she did not return home. He tried to search her at his own level but could not find her anywhere. Her mental condition is not good as she is suffering from fits for which her treatment is also on going. On the basis of the said complaint, the instant FIR was registered. On 03.02.2024, the victim was recovered and on 04.02.2024, her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein she made allegations of sexual intercourse against Ajesh Kumar @ Aju (the present petitioner). Her medical examination was also got conducted.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. She submits that the relationship between the petitioner and the victim was consensual in nature as the petitioner and the victim were friends with each other for about a year and were regularly meeting with each other. However, the father of the victim was not happy with the said relationship as they belonged to Jatt community and the petitioner belonged to Scheduled Caste community. She submits that the FIR was initially registered as a missing complaint and later on offence under the POCSO Act was added only to falsely implicate the petitioner. She further submits that there are material contradictions and improvements in the statements made by the victim. She further submits that in her testimony recorded before the Trial Court, the victim admitted that during those alleged three days, she along with the petitioner had visited Panchmukhi Temple, Mullana, which clearly shows that the victim went with the petitioner out of her own free will.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is behind the bars since 05.02.2024. She also submits that investigation in the present case is complete; challan stands presented; charges have been framed and out of total 24 prosecution witnesses, only 13 have been examined so far and 07 have been given up. 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.

6. Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, 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 and there is every possibility that after being released on bail, the petitioner may influence the prosecution witnesses of the present case. He further submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender and apart from the instant case, he is also involved in 05 other cases regarding which the petitioner has not m