IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 30.03.2026 MOHIT ......Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Ankur Lal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Anmol Malik, DAG, Haryana.

****

KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL)

1. The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 BNSS has been invoked for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.169 dated 23.04.2025, under Sections 140(3) and 64(1) of BNS and Section 4 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station City Bhiwani, District Bhiwani.

2. The translated version of the FIR is reproduced below:-

“TO SHO I, Police Station Incharge John Chok Bhiwani, respectfully submit that I am a resident of Ravi s/o Chandpal r/o Dadri village in Dhana Road Gali No. 06. My daughter, who is 15 years old, had gone to collect household items from a neighbour's house at around 2:30 PM but has not returned home yet. When I inquired with the neighbours in the evening, they said they did not know her whereabouts. She was wearing a green kurta and her height is 5'2" and she was wearing slippers. Please search for my daughter immediately. SD Ravi Prathvi, Ravi Putra Chandpal, Mobile No. 99919xxxxx.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant FIR, which was initially lodged as a missing complaint by the father of the prosecutrix. It is submitted that the sole reason for the nomination of the petitioner in the present case is that he is a friend of one Bhanda, who allegedly used to harass the victim. Moreover, even the incriminating statements of the prosecutrix suffer from material infirmities, inasmuch as, she alleged that she was taken to a guest house by the petitioner, where the petitioner sexually exploited her, whereas, there is no evidence that proves the presence of the petitioner at the said place. Moreover, even the MLR of the prosecutrix does not reveal the commission of any offence against her. Even the hymen of the prosecutrix was found to be intact. He further submits that the petitioner, a 21 year old young boy, has already undergone actual custody of 11 months and 6 day.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submits that there are specific serious allegations against the present petitioner of committing penetrative sexual assault upon the prosecutrix, who was 15 years of age at the time. The statement of the complainant recorded under Section 183 BNSS and her testimony before the learned trial Court are consistent with respect to the said allegations, wherein she has narrated a detailed account of how the petitioner committed sexual assault upon the victim. It is the specific allegation that the petitioner, instead of taking the prosecutrix to the bus stand, as had been the plan, took her to a guest house without her consent, where he established forcible physical relations with her, thereafter also extending threats to circulate her videos, and even refusing to marry her. During investigation, the medical examination of the prosecutrix was also got conducted, wherein she gave the history of complete penetrative sexual assault by the petitioner. Accordingly, the offences under Section 64 of BNS and 4 of POCSO Act were added in the present case. The petitioner suffered disclosure statement before the police authorities, wherein he admitted his guilt and demarcated the place of occurrence. It is submitted that after completion of investigation, challan was presented, and thereafter charges were framed against the petitioner on 07.06.2025, and out of 24 prosecutrix witnesses, 16 stand examined. In view of the serious allegations levelled, the petitioner does not deserve to be granted the concession of regular bail by this Court.

5. Heard.

6. The POCSO Act, 2012 is a special legislation enacted with a clear and stringent legislative intent to protect children from sexual exploitation and abuse, and to ensure