IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 06.04.2026 CCL ‘Kxxxxxx’ ......Appellant Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Rajat Sheokand, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Anmol Malik, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Punit Verma, Advocate for respondent No.2.

****

KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL)

1. The appellant has filed this appeal assailing the order dated 26.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, whereby the bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 81 dated 21.03.2025 under Sections 64(1), 351(3) of BNS and Section 4 of POCSO Act, (lateron added Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act 1989, and lateron Section 65(1) of BNS added and deleted Section 64(1) of POCSO Act), registered at Police Station Israna, District Panipat, has been dismissed.

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

“"Copy application number 476-Dasti and CCTNS NO.

00013234015250477 is attached To SHO Sahib Police Station Israna Panipat. It is requested that I, xxxx W/O Vinod village Bhalasi caste Dhanak, currently live on rent at Taale Chamar's house in village Naultha. On 20/03/2025, my husband had gone to his sister's house. And I had gone to work with a confectioner (Halwai) in village Naultha. My daughter xxxx, who is 12 years old, was coming to meet me at night around 09:30 to 10:00 pm, where a boy named Krishan alias Jhandu, son of Bhasha caste Jhimar, started saying to my daughter xxxx that I know your mother, I will take you to your mother. Then Krishan alias Jhandu, taking advantage of the darkness, took my daughter xxxx near the Johad, covered her face and held her hand and forcibly did wrong things with her and threatened her that if she told this to anyone, he would kill her. He left my daughter there and ran away and my daughter came home crying and told us everything. Please take legal action against Krishan alias Jhandu. SD Bina W/O Vinod village Bhalsi present Naultha

21/03/2025 MO-999126xxxx.”

3. Mr. Punit Verma, Advocate puts in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2 and has filed his power of attorney. The same is taken on record.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant, a 16-year-old child in conflict with law at the time, has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of the statement of the mother of the prosecutrix, alleging commission of wrongful acts upon the minor prosecutrix therein. It is contended that material contradictions exist in the statements of the prosecutrix and her mother, particularly with respect to the place of the alleged occurrence. It is further submitted that despite the prosecutrix allegedly disclosing the incident on the same night, there is an unexplained delay of 18 hours in lodging the FIR. Reliance is further placed on the medical report (Annexure P-3), which records the presence of no external injuries. It is submitted that there is no cogent evidence on record to substantiate the allegations leveled against the appellant, who has already undergone an actual custody period of almost 01 year and has clean antecedents.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. Learned State counsel states that the appellant was actively involved in the commission of the offence. Learned State counsel has further filed custody certificate in Court today and the same is taken on record. As per custody certificate, the appellant has undergone an actual custody of almost 01 year. The learned State counsel, on instructions from the investigating officer concerned, submits that in the present case, charges were framed on 30.07.2025 and out of 21 cited prosecution witnesses, 03 have been examined till date. Learned State counsel submits that in view of the serious allegations agains