Punjab-Haryana High Court
Xxxxxxxxxxxx vs Xxxxxxxxxxxx on 22 April, 2026
CRM-M-44529-2025 (O&M) -1-
CRM-M-23689-2025 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
1. CRM-M No. 44529 of 2025 (O&M)
Date of Decision- 22.4.2026
Rajveer Singh ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another .....Respondents
2. CRM-M No. 23689 of 2025 (O&M)
Surya Parkash ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana .....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH
Present: Mr. P.S.Ahluwalia, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Deepinder Virk, Advocate and
Ms. Simerpreet Sekhon, Advocate
for the petitioner (in CRM-M-44529-2025).
Mr. Vipin Kumar, Advocate
for the petitioner (in CRM-M-23689-2025)
Mr. Anmol Malik, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Lakhwinder Singh Sidhu, Advocate and
Mr. Ishan Thakur, Advocate
for respondent No.2 (in both cases).
****
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 petitioners in case FIR No.22 dated 16.5.2024 under Sections 354-A, 376-D, 452, 377, 376(2n), 506 IPC and Section 10/6/18 of the POCSO Act, registered at Police Station ITHLESH KUMAR 2026.04.22 18:05 Women Dabwali, District Sirsa.
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-44529-2025 (O&M) -2-
CRM-M-23689-2025 (O&M)
2. For the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from the petition bearing No.CRM-M-44529-2025.
3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner (in CRM-M-44529- 2025) as well as learned counsel for the petitioner (in CRM-M-23689-2025) inter alia submit that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case by the prosecutrix-complainant by levelling allegations that both the petitioners forcibly entered her house and committed rape upon her. On unsubstantiated averment of mishandling of the prosecutrix and causing injuries to her has also been made against the petitioner. It is the vehement contention of the learned senior counsel that petitioner Rajveer Singh frequently visited the house of the complainant, being related to her husband, and over time the two developed mutual affections for each other. The two remained in constant contact, as can be seen from the screenshots of call records annexed at Annexures P-7 and P-8. However, when the true facts came to the knowledge of the husband of the complainant, he concocted a false and fabricated story so as to escape the liability of returning the money borrowed by his family from the family of petitioner- Rajveer Singh on various occasions. In fact, on the day of alleged incident i.e. on 15.5.2024 at about 8.36 P.M., the complainant sent a text message to petitioner-Rajveer Singh and invited him to her house. However, as soon as the petitioner arrived, the husband as well as the in-laws of the complainant, in furtherance of a pre-planned conspiracy, entered the room and started beating both the petitioners. They also removed the clothes of both the accused, made their video and demanded Rs.60.00 lacs from them. In this regard, an application under Section 175 of BNSS seeking registration of the ITHLESH KUMAR 2026.04.22 18:05 FIR against the complainant and her family members was also moved, I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CRM-M-44529-2025 (O&M) -3- CRM-M-23689-2025 (O&M) during inquiry into which one Sushil Kumar, cousin of the complainant's husband, confessed about the recording an objectionable video of the petitioners as a part of a pre-planned conspiracy. It has further been argued that petitioner-Rajveer Singh has also filed a petition bearing No. CRM-M- 36632-2025 seeking re-investigation of the present FIR, wherein a direction was given to the learned trial Court to adjourn the case beyond the date fixed by this Court, for which reason the charges are yet to be framed, despite the petitioners having undergone an actual custody of more than 01 year and 10 months. However, now the said petition has been dismissed as withdrawn by order of even date. It is submitted that the petitioners, both in their late 20s, have already suffered prolonged incarceration due to a protracted trial.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2 have vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. They state that specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioners. The learned State counsel, on instructions from the investigating officer concerned, further submits that in the present case, challan was presented on 17.8.2024. Moreover, though there is no other criminal case registered against petitioner-Rajveer Singh, however, petitioner-Surya Parkash is facing trial in two other FIRs. Accordingly, the petitioners do not deserve to be granted the concession of regular bail.
5. Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
6. Before proceeding, a gainful reference can be made to the observations passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. ITHLESH KUMAR 2026.04.22 18:05 CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, relevant paras whereof reads thus: I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment CRM-M-44529-2025 (O&M) -4- CRM-M-23689-2025 (O&M) "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 punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.
22.From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, "necessity" is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances."
7. Reverting to the case in hand, the following facts are borne out from the record:
I) Challan in the instant case was filed on 17.08.2024.
II) Since an interim order had been passed in another petition pertaining to the present FIR, vide which the learned trial Court had been directed to adjourn the case beyond the date fixed by this Court, the charges have not been framed till date. The pace of the proceedings, thus, indicates that the conclusion of trial is not imminent.
ITHLESH KUMAR III) Petitioner-Rajveer Singh has already remained in actual 2026.04.22 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CRM-M-44529-2025 (O&M) -5- CRM-M-23689-2025 (O&M) custody for a period of 1 year, 10 months and 5 days, while petitioner-Surya Parkash has undergone a custody period of 1 year, 10 months and 8 days.
IV) While petitioner-Rajveer Singh has no criminal antecedents, there are two other cases pending against petitioner-Surya Parkash.
8. While the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations levelled against the petitioners, and the culpability, if any, would be tested and determined on the touchstone of evidence during the course of trial, the parameters governing the grant of bail necessitate a balanced consideration of the nature of accusation, the stage of the trial, the antecedents of the accused, and the likelihood of his absconding or influencing the course of justice.
9. Presently, no material has been placed on record to suggest that the petitioners pose a flight risk or that their release would impede the fair conduct of the trial. Therefore, upon taking into account all the considerations stated hereinbefore, and without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case lest it may prejudice the trial, this Court is of the opinion that the continued detention of the petitioners, in the backdrop of the pace of the proceedings and the substantial period of incarceration already undergone, would not advance the cause of justice. The guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which includes the right to a speedy trial, obliges the Court to ensure that pre-trial incarceration does not assume a punitive character. The prolonged incarceration, without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near ITHLESH KUMAR 2026.04.22 18:05 future, would also run contrary to the settled legal principle that 'bail is the I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CRM-M-44529-2025 (O&M) -6- CRM-M-23689-2025 (O&M) rule and jail is the exception', as reaffirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2018) 3 SCC 22.
10. As regards the submission regarding the involvement of petitioner-Surya Parkash in two other criminal cases is concerned, a gainful reference can be made to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (2) SCC 382, wherein it was held that the facts and circumstances of the case at hand are to be seen while deciding a bail application, and grant of the same cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in other case(s). The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced herein-below:-
"As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc."
11. Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed, and to ensure that the interests of justice are adequately safeguarded, the petitioners are ordered to be released on regular bail upon furnishing of adequate bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate, subject to the following terms and conditions:-
(i) The petitioners shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The petitioners shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s).
(iii) The petitioners will appear before the trial Court on the date ITHLESH KUMAR 2026.04.22 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
integrity of this order/judgment CRM-M-44529-2025 (O&M) -7- CRM-M-23689-2025 (O&M)
(iv) The petitioners shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused of, or for commission of which he is suspected.
(v) The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (V) The petitioners shall not make any attempts to re-associate with the prosecutrix or her family members in any manner either through a device or in-person.
12. Liberty is reserved with the investigating agency/complainant to move to this Court in the event of violation of the aforesaid conditions, or upon showing any other sufficient cause.
13. It is reiterated that the observations made in hereinabove are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail petitions, and must not be construed as a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE April 22, 2026 Gurpreet Singh/Ithlesh Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No ITHLESH KUMAR 2026.04.22 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment