IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 04.12.2025 PXXXX ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Amitabh Tewari, Advocate (through V.C.) and Mr. Ishan Mutneja, Advocate and Mr. Sehajpreet Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Saumya Ahluwalia, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

****

KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL)

1. By way of the present revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.5.2024, passed by the learned Appellate Court concerned, whereby the appeal filed against the order dated 07.3.2024 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Gurugram dismissing the bail application filed by the present petitioner in FIR No. 187 dated 18.6.2023 under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, Sections 66(b), 66(e) of IT Act, and Section 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Sector-9A, Gurugram, has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that on 18.6.2023, the mother of the prosecutrix made a statement before the investigating agency, alleging therein that the petitioner had established forceful physical relations with her daughter. It was further alleged that he had made objectionable videos of the Gurpreet Singh prosecutrix, and shared the same in chat groups. On the basis of the said statement, the present FIR was registered.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the petitioner, aged about 17 years at the time of the commission of the alleged offence, has been falsely implicated in this case on the statement of the mother of the prosecutrix. It is submitted that upon determining the age of the petitioner as being less than 18 years of age, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Gurugram forwarded the case of the petitioner to the learned Principle Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Gurugram. It is the foremost submission that there is a considerable delay in the lodging of the FIR from the date of the commission of the alleged offence. There is neither any medical nor forensic evidence available against the petitioner. Additionally, no direct evidence is on record to substantiate the allegations that the petitioner had shared any video of the prosecutrix. Even otherwise, the authenticity of the said video is a disputed question of fact, which shall be determined in the due course of trial. While further placing reliance on the social investigation report of the petitioner-CCL, no concerning findings have come forward. It is also emphasized that the petitioner, who is presently lodged at the place of safety in Faridabad, has already undergone an actual custody of 02 years, 05 months and 13 days, cannot be kept in indefinitely as an undertrial, especially when the case is not progressing, since despite charges having been framed in January 2025, no witness has been examined till date. Even the prosecutrix herself and the complainant are not coming forward to depose before the Board/Court concerned.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. She states that I attest to the accuracy tahnde petitioner, who though was declared a juvenile but has been ordered to be tried as an adult, was actively involved in the commission of the alleged offence. She 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 02 years, 05 months and 13 days. The learned State counsel, on instructions from the investigating officer concerned, submits that in the present case, charges were framed on 02.1.2025 and out of total 24 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined till date. She submits that in view of the serious allegations against the petitioner, that he had established physical relations with the prosecutrix and shared the video of the same, he is not entitled to the concession of regular bail. It is als