IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

209 CRM-M-5062-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 30.03.2026 Jagjeet Singh …..Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NEERJA K. KALSON Present:- Mr. Ankit Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gorav Kathuria, DAG, Punjab.

****

NEERJA K. KALSON, J .

1. This petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 91 dated 26.06.2024, registered under Sections 346, 376-D IPC and under Section 4 of the POCSO Act (charge framed under Sections 450, 328, 363, 365, 366, 346, 376-D IPC and under Sections 5 & 6 POCSO Act) registered at Police Station Sadar Faridkot, District Faridkot.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the intervening night of 11.06.2024, the prosecutrix was allegedly abducted from her house after being administered some intoxicating substance. It is alleged that the petitioner along with his co-accused kidnapped and wrongfully confined the prosecutrix and thereafter committed gang rape upon her. The prosecutrix returned home and her statement was recorded on 26.06.2024, on the basis of which the present FIR came to be registered.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and is innocent. It is argued that there is an unexplained delay of about 15 days in lodging the FIR and even no missing report was lodged during the said period. It is further contended that the prosecutrix was not recovered from the custody of the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that no injury or mark of violence was found on the person of the prosecutrix during medical examination and even the doctor has not conclusively opined commission of rape. It is also argued that material witnesses have already been examined and their testimonies suffer from contradictions and improvements. It is further submitted that the prosecutrix was major or near majority and had left the house on her own accord after a quarrel with her parents, and thereafter the petitioner has been falsely implicated. Lastly, it is contended that the petitioner is in custody for the last 01 year, 08 months and 27 days and the trial is likely to take time.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for bail and submits that the allegations against the petitioner are grave and relate to gang rape upon the prosecutrix, who is stated to be a minor. It is argued that the delay in lodging the FIR stands explained in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is further submitted that the petitioner is one of the main accused and though some witnesses have been examined, several material witnesses, including the prosecutrix, are yet to be examined. It is contended that in case the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of his influencing the witnesses or affecting the course of trial.

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

6. The allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature involving kidnapping and gang rape, attracting stringent provisions of the POCSO Act. At this stage, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to delay in lodging the FIR, absence of injuries, and alleged contradictions in the statements are matters which pertain to appreciation of evidence and are to be considered during the course of trial.

7. It is also a matter of record that though some witnesses have been examined, the prosecution has cited a number of witnesses and the trial is still at a crucial stage. The possibility of the petitioner influencing the witnesses or interfering with the trial proceedings cannot be ruled out, particularly keeping in view the nature of allegations and the role attributed to him.

8. The period of custody of the petitioner, though relevant, is not sufficient to outweigh the gr