IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 01.04.2026 GULAB ANSARI ......Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Ms. Pooja Jaglan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Anmol Malik, DAG, Haryana. Ms. Bhumika Khatri, Advocate for Mr. Sunil Kumar Dhanda, Advocate for the complainant.

****

KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL)

1. The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 of BNSS has been invoked for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 231 dated 29.06.2024 under Sections 365, 376(2)(n), 384, 506 of IPC and Section

6 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Tehsil Camp, Panipat. 2. The translated version of the FIR is reproduced below:-

“To SHO Tehsil Camp, it is submitted that I Bobby S/o Dhaniram R/o Wadhawa Ram Colony near Parshuram Mandir Panipat am resident of the said place. I have 2 sons and I daughter. My eldest daughter is xxxx whose age is about 15-16 years who today at about 11 a.m. went somewhere from home without informing anyone. Her description is as follows: colour whiteish, round face, strong body, height about 5 feet, wearing light black colour suit. Kindly search for her. Thank you. Sd/- Bobby 999636xxxx, 981350xxxx.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present FIR was initially registered as a missing person complaint on the statement of the father of the prosecutrix. The petitioner, aged 24 years, was not named therein. It was only subsequently that the allegations of sexual assault upon the prosecutrix were introduced. It is submitted that there exist material contradictions between the statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and her deposition before the learned trial Court, thereby creating serious doubt regarding the case of the prosecution. Learned counsel also submits that, as per the FSL report, no semen was detected on the exhibits of the prosecutrix. It is further submitted that, there is no cogent evidence on record to substantiate the allegations leveled against the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has already undergone an actual custody period of 01 year 08 months and 23 days and has clean antecedents.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He states that the petitioner was actively involved in the commission of the offence. He has filed custody certificate in Court today and the same is taken on record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone an actual custody of 01 year 08 months and 23 days. The learned State counsel, on instructions from the investigating officer concerned, submits that in the present case, charges were framed on 13.11.2024 and out of total 19 prosecution witnesses, only 01 i.e. the victim has been examined till date. He submits that in view of the serious allegations against the petitioner, he is not entitled to the concession of regular bail.

5. Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

6. Before proceeding further, a gainful reference can also be made to the observations passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, relevant paras whereof reads thus:

"21.In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.

22.From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From tim