Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 25176

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Neerja K. Kalson, J
Amit – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent
CRM-M-44594-2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Naresh Kumar Chhokar, Advocate
For the Respondents: Geeta Rani, AAG, Haryana

In cases arising under the POCSO Act involving adolescent relationships, when the victim's statement reveals a consensual elopement and trial has sufficiently progressed, the court may exercise its discretion to grant bail to fulfill the requirements of justice and personal liberty under Article 21.

Headnote:(A) Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanita, 2023 - Section 483 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 363, 366A, 120-B - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 4 and 17 - Bail - Consensual relationship - Minor victim - Contradiction in statements - Petitioner in custody for over two years - Prosecution evidence largely concluded - Balancing minor's protection with personal liberty. (Paras 1, 4, 12, 13)

(B) Bail - Consideration - The guiding test for bail involves the nature and gravity of the accusation, severity of potential punishment, risk of absconding, and likelihood of the offence being repeated - Premature evaluation of evidence at bail stage should be avoided to prevent prejudicing the trial. (Paras 11, 19, 23)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner is an accused in a case involving alleged abduction and sexual assault of a minor girl. The investigation and charge-framing are complete, and key witnesses, including the prosecutrix and complainant, have been examined. The petitioner has been in custody since December 2023. The bail application is based on the argument of a consensual elopement/relationship, highlighting contradictions in the victim's statements provided before the Child Welfare Committee and in court, where she admitted to mutual affection.

Findings of Court:
Despite the serious nature of the offences under the POCSO Act, the court noted stark contradictions in the victim's own version, indicating a consensual elopement rather than abduction. Considering the substantive progress of the trial, the length of incarceration, and the lack of criminal antecedents, the court found continued detention unjustified.

Issues: Whether the petitioner should be granted regular bail in a POCSO case where there are indications of a consensual adolescent relationship and contradictions in the victim's testimony.

Ratio Decidendi: While acknowledging the need to protect minors under the POCSO Act, the court held that the statute is not intended to criminalize consensual adolescent relationships, and it is a matter of judicial vigilance to distinguish such cases from real abuse when faced with glaring discrepancies in evidence.

Result: Bail application allowed.

Table of Content
1. summary of procedural history and factual background regarding the abduction/pocso allegations. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. contentions of parties regarding bail eligibility for alleged offence under pocso. (Para 8 , 9)
3. court's perspective on addressing contradictions in prosecutrix statements in pocso cases. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. judicial precedents emphasizing the misuse of pocso law regarding consensual adolesecent relationships. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
5. principles of bail based on pre-trial incarceration and personal liberty under article 21. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
6. final order granting bail with specific conditions for the accused. (Para 24 , 25 , 26)

****

NEERJA K. KALSON , J.

CRM-1852-2026

This is an application filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 to place on record the copy of statement dated 17.11.2025 of the victim/PW-1 as well as statement dated 17.11.2025 of the complainant/Vijay Kumar/PW-2 as Annexures P-6 and P-7 and exemption from filing the certified/typed copies of the same.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and accompanied documents as Annexures P-6 and P-7 are taken on record.

CRM-M-44594-2025

The present Petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanita, 2023 (hereinafter "BNSS") seeking regular bail on behalf of the Petitioner in connection with First Information Report (hereinafter FIR) No. 965 dated 15.11.2023, registered at Police Station Sector 58, Faridabad, District Faridabad, for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366A, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter "IPC") and Sections 4 and 17 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter "POCSO Act").

2. The genesis of the prosecution's case lies in a missing person report dated 15.11.2023 lodged by a father (hereinafter "Complainant"), stating that his daughter, aged 15 years at the time, (hereinafter "prosecutrix") had gone to purchase books and did not return. Despite repeated attempts, she was not found. However, on 22.12.2023, the prosecutrix was recovered from village Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh.

3. The prosecutrix's statement was duly recorded before the Child Welfare Committee (hereinafter "CWC") on 23.12.2023 (Ex. P-4) wherein she alleged repeated penetrative sexual assault by the applicant-petitioner, and this led to the addition of offences under Sections 363, 366A, IPC and Section 4, POCSO Act.

4. Statement of the prosecutrix u/s 164, CrPC was recorded before the learned Ilaqa Magistrate and she was medically examined. Thereafter, the prosecutrix disclosed a year-long telephonic acquaintance with the applicant-petitioner. She stated that on 15.11.2023, the applicant-petitioner, along with his friend Saurav, took her to Palwal and thereafter to Aligarh, where a marriage ritual was performed in a temple and eventually, they went to Surat and resided in a rented accommodation. In her court testimony as PW-1, the prosecutrix described befriending the applicant-petitioner, who invited her to his house, then took her to Palwal and Aligarh; he applied vermilion on her forehead and committed rape. Notably, during her cross-examination on 17.11.2025, she admitted being happy with the applicant-petitioner and confirmed that her prior statement (Ex. P-6) reflected their mutual desire to marry, which was opposed solely by her parents.

5. The applicant-petitioner was arrested on 24.12.2023 and continues to be in custody. The other three co-accused remain absconding. Chargesheet was filed and charges were framed on 07.08.2024.

6. The applicant-petitioner's first bail application was considered and dismissed by the Ld.Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad on 31.07.2025 vide Bail Application No.4288-2025.

7. The trial is currently in progress. The prosecution has cited a total of 18 witnesses. To date, two key witnesses have been examined, including the prosecutrix and the complainant. The mother of the prose

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 25176

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARHNeerja K. Kalson, JAmit – AppellantVersusState Of Haryana – RespondentCRM-M-44594-2025

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Neerja K. Kalson, J
Amit – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent
CRM-M-44594-2025