IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 23.02.2026 RAHUL VERMA ......Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Jagpal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Yadwinder Singh, AAG, Punjab.

****

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. 204 dated 16.07.2025 under Sections 137(2), 87 of BNS and lateron added Section 64 of BNS, Section 6 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Ludhiana.

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

“Statement of unknown xxxx, wife of Ram Narayan Tiwari, resident of Street No. 3, Mohalla New Abedkar Nagar, 33 Foot Road, Giaspura, Police Station Sahnewal, Ludhiana, age about 42 years, Mob: 9653923991, stated that I am a resident of the above address. My marriage took place in the year, 2001 in UP, and I have four children, out of which three are girls, the eldest of whom is xxxx, xxxx and xxxx, and the son is Rajnis Kumar Tiwari. My younger daughter is xxxx, the eldest of whom is xxxx, who passed her 10th class papers from Government School Giaspura, Ludhiana, whose date of birth is 04/12/2009, and my husband works in a private factory and I also work in a factory near Eastman Factory. Later, my children used to live at home. On 28-06-2025, Subha and I had gone to our work as usual, and my daughter xxxx had gone home without telling us. My children called me and told me this and I told my husband, so I went home and investigated the girl in the surrounding neighborhoods and came to know that Rahul Verma, whose mobile phone number is 9780665565, had seduced my daughter with the intention of getting her married and taken her somewhere. My husband and I have searched for her till date but have not found any trace of her. I have informed you about her. Rahul Verma, please take legal action and get my daughter back. I have written a statement. I heard, it is correct SD:-Sangita Devi (in Hindi) Verification:- Deep Chand ASI PP Giaspura Ludhiana Date 16-07-2025”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 21 year old petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the prosecutrix, whose age is a disputed question of fact, was well known to the petitioner. It is further submitted the prosecutrix had infact left the custody of her parents on her own wish, as can be seen from a bare perusal of her statement recorded u/s 183 BNSS (Annexure R-2). 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. Moreover, the petitioner and the prosecutrix solemnized marriage on 13.7.2025, at which time, the prosecutrix was a major. It is also submitted that they had even filed a petition before the learned Sessions Judge concerned, seeking protection to their life and liberty, which was decided vide order dated 14.07.2025. It is submitted that the subsequent adverse statement(s), which were recorded by the prosecutrix only on account of family pressure, also suffer from material contradictions. Moreover, the prosecutrix and her mother (complainant) have already been examined before the learned trial Court, and there is no apprehension of the petitioner influencing the witnesses. Only one out of fifteen witnesses has been examined and the trial is likely to take considerable period of time.

Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has already undergone an actual custody of 07 months and 04 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 invol