IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 11.02.2026 RIZWAN .....PETITIONER Vs.

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

Mr. Atul Gaur, AAG, Haryana.

****

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.90 dated 21.06.2024 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 365, 376 DA, 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Uttawar, Palwal, Haryana, during the pendency of trial.

2. Briefly, as per the case of prosecution, the daughter of complainant was repeatedly subjected to sexual assault by petitioner along with his friends.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in custody since 13.11.2024, i.e., for over 01 year and 03 months. The final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C has been filed, wherein 21 witnesses have been cited The presence of the petitioner is no longer required for any purpose, as the trial is likely to take a considerable time to conclude. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The petitioner and the prosecutrix were in a consensual relationship and had intended to marry each other against their families wishes. Pursuant thereto, they solemnized their Nikah on 02.11.2024 (copy of marriage certificate annexed as P-4). Following the marriage, the petitioner and the prosecutrix sought protection of their life and liberty by filing a petition bearing CRWP No.-10907-2024 titled Muskan & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 12.11.2024 (Annexure P-5). These facts clearly establish the consensual nature of their relationship. However, under pressure from her parents, the prosecutrix has supported the prosecution case, in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C and her deposition before the trial Court. It is further submitted that, following registration of the FIR, the prosecutrix was subjected to medical examination, the medical report reveals no injuries on her person. It has further been submitted that the petitioner has also been implicated in a similar case bearing FIR No. 137 dated 30.10.2024, under Sections 140(3), 64, 351(), 318(4), 238 BNS and Section 6 POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Uttawar, Palwal where similar allegations were levelled by the complainant party. In that case, the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court granted regular bail to the petitioner vide order dated 28.01.2026. The learned counsel, while referring to the same order, submitted that the prosecutrix has been residing in Nari Niketan since then. She was produced before that Court from Nari Niketan itself and was subsequently sent to Nari Niketan, Chandigarh, vide order dated 15.01.2026, despite having attained the age of majority. However, while granting regular bail to petitioner in FIR No.137 dated 30.10.2024, the Co-ordinate Bench has ordered that the custody of prosecutrix be given to the petitioner, along with his family members as she has turned major. Learned counsel further submits that the prosecutrix is still living in Nari Niketan and has given the statement that she wants to live with petitioner which further proves the consensual relationship between them. 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.

4. 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 has produced custody certificate dated 10.02.2026 in Court, which is taken on record.

5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through