IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 17.11.2025 ASHIK …. PETITIONER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER …. RESPONDENTS CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr.Sudhir Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Brijesh Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. C.S.Bakshi, Advocate for respondent No.2 (though VC).

***

KIRTI SINGH, J. (Oral)

1. The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 BNSS has been invoked for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 494 dated 17.08.2024, under Sections 123, 64, 137, 96, 351(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 4 of POSCO Act, 2012, registered at Police Station Indri, District Karnal (initially FIR was registered under Section 137 and 96 of BNS, 2023).

2. The translated version of the FIR is reproduced below:-

“It is requested that I am Luvekush son of Shri Kehar Singh, resident of village Samspur. Today on 17.8.2024 in the evening around 4 o'clock, my wife informed me over a telephonic call that my daughter's name is, xxx is not at home from long time. Thereafter, we started searching for her, and we came to know that xxx has gone towards Karnal. After sitting in a bus, we also came to know that one boy, namely Aashik, resident of village, Gudpur Tapu, he belongs to Muslim religion, about one year ago, also, when xxx was studying in 10th class at Gadi Birbal government over her, by school, he possessed alluring her, when we came to know about this fact, we called the father of that some other persons of village boy and Gudpur Tapu were also present there, his father, respectable the and person assured that the boy will not tease the girl in future, but today on 17.8.2024, he tried to take xxx with him, by allowing her, but he could not get success and he ran away by leaving the girl near the bus stand. Hence, it is requested to you that the age of our daughter, xxx 14 years, she is a minor, I have kept her at home only because of this boy, strict legal action be taken against this boy and also my family is not happy with this boy. Therefore, it is requested that legal action be taken against this boy."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that it is a case of false implication. The above stated FIR has been registered after a delay of one year from the alleged date of occurrence. Further, the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has not supported the case of prosecution. There is no medical evidence to substantiate the allegations leveled against the petitioner, a 24 year old who has been in custody for 01 year, 02 months and 22 days. There is no other case registered against him.

4 Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He states that the petitioner was actively involved in the commission of the offence. He has filed custody certificate in Court today and the same is taken on record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone an actual custody of 01 year, 02 months and 22 days. The learned State counsel, on instructions from the investigating officer concerned, submits that in the present case, charges were framed on 24.02.2025 and out of total 20 prosecution witnesses, 12 have been examined till date. He submits that in view of the serious allegations against the petitioner, he is not entitled to the concession of regular bail.

5. Heard the submissions made.

6. Admittedly, the charges were framed on 24.02.2025 and out of total 20 prosecution witnesses, 12, including the material witnesses, stand examined till date. The petitioner has undergone actual custody of 01 year, 02 months and 22 days. There is no other criminal case registered against him. The veracity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner shall be established during the course of the 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 con