IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 10.02.2026 MANJEET .....PETITIONER Vs.

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR .....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEERJA K. KALSON Present:- Mr. Kamal Mor, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Vasundhara Dalal Anand, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Neeraj Sharma Shandiya, Advocate for respondent No.2-complainant.

****

NEERJA K. KALSON , J .

The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanita, 2023 seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.87 dated 14.03.2023, under Sections 346 of IPC (later on added Sections 363, 366-A, 376(2)(n), 506 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act), registered at Police Station Kunjpura, District Karnal.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 26.04.2023. As per the status report, out of the total 19 prosecution witnesses, only 02 have been examined before the trial Court. The trial is yet to be concluded and is likely to take a considerable period of time. Learned counsel further contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The prosecutrix’s statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. clearly reveals that she accompanied the petitioner/accused at her own volition. He further referred to the victim’s statement (PW-1) wherein she candidly admitted that she regularly spoke with Priyanka (sister of accused) and the accused also used to join them. She also admitted in her statement Ex.P-7 wherein she stated that she had been regularly in contact with the petitioner/accused since January, 2023 and that they were in love. There is, thus, no tangible or substantive prosecution evidence warranting the continued incarceration of the petitioner. In view of the above, learned counsel prayed for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner.

3. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 10.11.2025 in Court, which is taken on record.

4. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

5. The petitioner has been in custody since 26.04.2023 whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan stands presented. Total 19 prosecution witnesses have been cited and only 02 i.e. victim and her father have been examined before the trial Court and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take a considerable time. The trial is no way going to conclude in near future. In this regard, it will be apposite to place reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as “ Manish Sisodia versus Directorate of Enforcement” 2024 INSC 595; relevant whereof reads as under:-

“50. As observed by this Court, the right to speedy trial and the right to liberty are sacrosanct rights. On denial of these rights, the trial court as well as the High Court ought to have given due weightage to this factor.

51. Recently, this Court had an occasion to consider an application for bail in the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and Another wherein the accused was prosecuted under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. This Court surveyed the entire law right from the judgment of this Court in the cases of Gudikanti Narasimhulu and Others v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh7, Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Others v. State of Punjab, Hussainara Khatoon and Others (I) v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb and Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another. The Court observed thus: "19. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Consti