IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 23.02.2026 SANJAY KUMAR ......Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Baljeet Beniwal, Advocate with Mr. Vinod Sorout and Ms. Ashika Kalra, Advocates for the petitioner.

Mr. Anmol Malik, DAG, Haryana.

****

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. 212 dated 01.04.2024 under Sections 363, 366-A of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Mujesar, District Faridabad. 2. The translated version of the FIR is reproduced below:-

“To Police Post In-charge, Police Post Sanjay Colony, Police Station Mujesar, Faridabad. Sir, I am Tejveer, son of late Shri Sunpat, resident of village Budhaka PO Vaina, Tehsil Khair, District Aligarh, currently a tenant of House 7645, Gali No. 29, near Pyari Medical Store, Sanjay Colony, Sector 23, Faridabad. I have three children, a girl and two boys. My daughter xxxx, age 17, went out of the house on March 29, 2024, at around 5 pm to buy some household items and has not returned home since. I have been searching for her among my relatives, but have not found any information about my daughter xxxx. My daughter was wearing a green suit and slippers. She appears to be of wheatish complexion, has a round face, a slim build, and is approximately 5 feet 2 inches tall, and 17 years old. I came to know today that a young man living in my neighbourhood, Sanjay S/o Ashok Kumar, currently a tenant of house no. 33/125, Sanjay Colony, Sector 23, Faridabad, and mobile no. 7877707570, has been absconding with the girl after luring her since around 5 pm in the evening.

Therefore, Sir, I request you to register an FIR on the basis of the above complaint and take immediate action. Applicant- Tejveer, Tejveer S/o Sunpat, Mobile no.-9911201897....Police Proceedings.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 20 year old petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the prosecutrix, who at the time of the alleged incident was admittedly almost 18 years of age, was well known to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the prosecutrix had infact left the custody of her parents on her own wish. There was no element of pressure or coercion at the end of the petitioner. It is submitted that since there was approval-of-fact though not consent-in-law in the present case, as per the own admission of the prosecutrix, and the age difference between the parties is also minimal, a lenient view may be taken towards the petitioner. It is the further submission that the prosecutrix, who has been declared hostile by the learned trial Court, has categorically stated that she is desirous of marrying the petitioner. The father of the prosecutrix too has not supported the case of the prosecution before the learned trial Court and has been declared hostile. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner, a young man with clean antecedents, who has already undergone an actual custody period of 01 year and 10 months.

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 and 10 months. The learned State counsel, on instructions from the concerned official, submits that in the present case, charges were framed on 14.10.2024 and out of total 31 prosecution witnesses, 03 (albeit including the complainant and victim) have been examined till date. However, the complainant and the victim have not supported the case of the prosecution. There is a DNA report which corroborates the allegations leveled against the petitioner as the