##PAGE1##

CRM-M-65171-2025 (O&M) -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

(136) CRM-M-65171-2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 06.4.2026

Kashmir Rajput ......Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana .....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Divyam Singh, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Anmol Malik, DAG, Haryana.

****

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. 0150 dated 27.3.2025 under Sections 137 and 87 of BNS, 2023, registered at

Police Station Old Industrial Panipat, District Panipat.

2. The facts in brief are that on 27.3.2025, the complainant got recorded his statement to the police, alleging therein that on 26.3.2025, at about 4.30 P.M., the petitioner enticed away his minor daughter on the false

pretext of marriage.

3. Thereafter, investigation was carried out. The prosecutrix was recovered on 01.4.2025 and her statement under Section 183 of BNSS was

recorded.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the petitioner, aged 19 years, has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant, who is the father of the prosecutrix. In fact, the petitioner and the prosecutrix were well known to each other. It is also submitted that the

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

Chandigarh

CRM-M-65171-2025 (O&M) -2-

prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS has stated that she had gone with the petitioner with her own will, and has not levelled any allegations against him. It is further submitted that the material witnesses i.e. the complainant and the prosecutrix, have been examined before the learned trial Court. However, they did not support the prosecution case and have turned hostile. He has placed on record their respective testimonies, which are taken on record. He further submits that the petitioner has undergone an actual custody of 01 year and 02 days 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. 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 and 02 days. The learned State counsel, on instructions from the investigating officer concerned, submits that in the present case, charges were framed on 28.5.2025 and out of total 14 prosecution witnesses, 02 have 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.

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 8. Before proceeding, a gainful reference can be made to the I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M-65171-2025 (O&M) -3-

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 punish