IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 02.02.2026 ISHWAR ALIAS BILLU .....PETITIONER Vs.

STATE OF HARYANA .....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEERJA K. KALSON Present:- Mr. Japjit Singh Johal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Geeta Rani, AAG, Haryana.

****

NEERJA K. KALSON , J .

The instant application has been filed by the applicant-accused under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter “Cr.P.C”) for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 92 dated 14.03.2024, registered at Police Station Narnaund, District Hisar under Sections 354A, 354B, 376(2) and 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter “IPC”) and Section 6 and 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter “POCSO Act”).

2. The genesis of the prosecution’s case lies on a police complaint dated 14.03.2024, lodged by the father of a four year old girl child (hereinafter “victim”) who alleged that he had received a call from Aunt (tai), who informed him that the applicant-accused had misbehaved with his daughter. On returning home and enquiring about the same, the victim told him that the applicant-accused had removed her clothes in the Dharamshala, spilled a milk-

like substance on her stomach, and touched her private parts. Based on these facts, the police initiated an investigation and thereafter, the applicant-accused was arrested, and has been in custody since 21.03.2024.

3. Upon culmination of the investigation, a final report was filed, and the trial is presently in progress before the District Court, Hisar (hereinafter referred to as the “trial Court”). Thus far, two witnesses have been examined. The victim was examined as PW-1, wherein she fully corroborated the prosecution’s case as narrated by her father, examined as PW-2. The Petitioner’s first bail application, Bail Application No. 1091 of 2025, was considered and dismissed by the learned trial court on 22.04.2025.

4. Learned Counsel for the Applicant has advanced the following primary contentions:

a. That the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case;

b. That there is no medical corroboration of the ocular version of the prosecution, and no external marks of injuries were found on the body of the victim, as reflected in the medical examination report;

c. That the victim has given contradictory versions in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and her deposition before the learned trial Court;

d. That the applicant has been in judicial custody since

21.03.2024, and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him incarcerated any further;

e. That the challan has already been presented before the learned trial court, and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude; and f. That the applicant undertakes to attend the court proceedings regularly and to abide by any condition imposed by this Hon’ble Court.

5. In view of these submissions, the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant has prayed for enlargement of the Applicant on bail.

6. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the bail application on the following grounds:

a. That the allegations against the Applicant are grave and serious in nature, inasmuch as the Applicant is alleged to have committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon the victim, who was aged about 4 years at the time of the incident;

b. That the victim and the complainant-father have been examined as PW-1 and PW-2, respectively, and they have fully supported the case of the prosecution;

c. That the case is at an early stage of trial, and if the Applicant is enlarged on bail, there is a likelihood that he may intimidate or influence the material witnesses, or abscond and evade the course of justice.

7. In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned State counsel has prayed for dismissal of the bail application.

8. Heard Ld. State Counsel and Ld. Counsel for the applicant and perused the record.

9. The principles governing the grant of bail are well settled. Though it is trite law