##PAGE1##

CRM-M-41863-2025 (O&M) -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

(127) CRM-M-41863-2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 06.4.2026

Sagar ......Petitioner

Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Guramrit Kaur, DAG, Punjab.

****

KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL)

1. The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been invoked for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 09 dated 02.3.2024 under Sections 363, 366-A, 376 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 registered at Police Station Fattu Dhinga, District

Kapurthala.

2. The facts in brief are that the complainant got recorded his statement to the police, alleging therein that on 29.2.2024, at about 12.00 noon, his daughter, aged 14 years, was standing outside his house but when she did not return home for a considerable period, his wife informed him telephonically about the same. Thereafter he came to know that his daugher has gone somewhere with petitioner-Sagar. He further alleged therein that he is of full belief that the petitioner enticed away her daughter on the false

pretext of marriage.

3. Thereafter, investigation was carried out. The prosecutrix was

recovered and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the

GURPREET SINGH petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant, who is

2026.04.06 17:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M-41863-2025 (O&M) -2-

the father of the prosecutrix. It is submitted that there is no evidence that point towards the complicity of the petitioner. Even, the medical evidence does not substantiate the allegations so levelled. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the deposition of the prosecutrix to submit that she did not support the prosecution case and has turned hostile. Even the statements of other material witness(es) do not establish the alleged offences against the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner has undergone an actual custody of 02 years, 01 month and 01 day and there is no other

criminal case registered against him.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. She states that the petitioner was actively involved in the commission of the offence. She 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 02 years, 01 month and 01 day. The learned State counsel, on instructions from SI Pardeep Kaur, submits that in the present case, charges were framed on 18.5.2024 and out of total 16 prosecution witnesses, 03 have been examined till date. She submits that in view of the serious allegations against

the petitioner, he is not entitled to the concession of regular bail.

6. Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the

parties.

7. Trite to say that at the stage of considering a petition seeking bail, the Court, though not required to make a roving inquiry into the evidence, must take into consideration the nature of the offence, severity of the punishment and prima facie, the involvement of the accused and the

material on record.

GURPREET SINGH 2026.04.06 17:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Chandigarh

CRM-M-41863-2025 (O&M) -3-

8. Before proceeding, a gainful reference can 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