IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 15.1.2026 Rinku ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Jay Subhash Thakur, Advocate and Mr. Vikas Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Anmol Malik, DAG, Haryana.

****

KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL)

1. The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 of BNSS 2023 has been invoked for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 316 dated 09.11.2024 under Sections 115, 65(1), 351(2) of BNS, 2023, Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 9, 10 and 11 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, registered at Police Station Matlauda, District Panipat.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that an application was moved by the prosecutrix before Protection Officer-cum-Child Marriage Prohibition Officer, Panipat alleging therein that her marriage has been forcibly solemnized with the present petitioner. Thereupon, an enquiry was got conduced by the Protection Officer-cum-Child Marriage Prohibition Officer. Statements of the mother of the prosecutrix as well as the present petitioner were recorded, whereupon it came to light that the marriage of the I attest to the accuracy panrdosecutrix was solemnized with the petitioner on 01.04.2024. The date of birth certificate regarding the age of the prosecutrix was obtained from the School of the victim, wherein her date of birth had been recorded as 04.11.2008. Hence on the date of marriage i.e. on 01.04.2024, she was found to be aged about 15 years and 4 months. Therefore, the Protection Officer-cum-Child Marriage Prohibition Officer got registered the instant FIR registered under Sections 9, 10 and 11 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. Investigation in the present case was carried out. The prosecutrix was produced before Civil Hospital, Panipat for her medical examination. Her statement under Section 183 of BNSS was recorded, on the basis whereof, Sections 115, 65(1) and 351(2) of B.N.S. and Section 6 of POCSO Act were added in the present case. Subsequently, counselling of the prosecutrix was got done through CWC, Panipat. On 22.03.2025, the petitioner was arrested in the present case.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case by the prosecutrix. It is submitted that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the prosecutrix on 01.4.2024, and at the time of their marriage, the age of the prosecutrix was stated by her mother to be 18 years. It has also been submitted that the prosecutrix and her mother have lodged similar complaints against two other persons and had also received financial consideration in this regard. Furthermore, there is a delay of seven month in registration of the present FIR. Moreover, the prosecutrix has refused to get herself medically examined. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed on record the zimni orders to contend that despite charges being framed on 21.5.2025, the complainant/vicim is not coming forward to record her statements and non-bailable warrants have been issued against her vide

2026.01.19 09:58 order dated 08.1.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat. He further submits that the petitioner has undergone an actual custody of 09 months and 22 days and there is no other criminal 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 09 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 21.5.2025 and out of total 16 prosecution witnesse