Punjab-Haryana High Court
Xxxxxxxxxxxx vs Xxxxxxxxxxxx on 22 April, 2026
CRM-M
M-20527-2026 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(217)
CRM
CRM-M-20527-2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 22.04.2026
SATYA KUMAR
......Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH
Present: Mr. Punit Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Anmol Malik, AAG, Harryana.
Mr. Manish Dhankhar, Advoocate, for the complainant.
****
KIRTI SINGH,
SINGH J. (ORAL)
1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short short- 'BNSS'), is for or grant of regular bail to the petitioner, in case FIR No. No.238 dated 15.04.2025,, under Sections 127(6) of BNS, 2023 (Section 346 IPC 1860), (later on challlan presentedd under Section 6 of POCSO A Act, 2012 and 127(4), 137(2), 87, 64(2), 655(1) of BNS, 2023 (Sections 3344, 363, 366,376(2), 376(3) IP PC, 1860), registered at Police Station Sector 110, Gurugram, Haryana.
2. The contents of the FIR are reproduced below:
below:-
"To, To, The Station House Officer, Police Station Sector-10, Sector Sir. It is submitted that I, Sanjayy Dubey, son of Rajender Dubey, resident of Village Navtan Dubey Tolla, Police Station Marhovara, District Chappra, Saran Vihar, presently residing at House No 73, Gali No an auto 2, Shakti Park, Gurugram. I work as driver. I have two sons and one daughter namely xxxx,, aged about 16 years and she has taken the exams of 10th grade. On 14.04.2025 at about 10 AM, my daughter left the house without informing anyone and while leaving the house she took around Rs 60000/-
60000/ along with some gold items. My daughter iiss of wheatish complexion, about 4 feet 6 inches tall, slim body, long face and a cut mark on left check.
SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.04.22 18:11 While leaving she was wearing white frock and sandals. I was searching I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document for her a at my own level but could not find her. Request to scribe a CRM-M M-20527-2026 (O&M) -2- missing report
port of my daughter and she be searched. S/D Sanjay Dubey.
Dubey."
"
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case which was initiaally lodged ass a missing complaint, on the sttatement made by the father of the prosecutriix. It is the foremost submission that the age of the prosecutrix iss of disputed question q of fact, and that she waas in fact a major when she left her house on her own free will. It is submittted that being well acquainted with the petitioner, petitioner the prosecutrix voluntarily solemnized marriage with him m on 25.04.20225. In support of this submisssion, learned counsel has placced reliance on o the marriage certificate anneexed at Annexure P-2. It is furtther submitted that there is no evidence onn record to establish the alleg ged offences against the petitioner. Even thhe material witnesses, who staand examinedd before the learned Trial Court have not supported the case of the prosecutioon and have turned hostile. It is submitted that 27 year old petitioner has already undergone an actual custody of 11 months and 09 days. Theere is no other case registered against him.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He,, upon instructions states that the petitioner was actively involved in the instructions, commission of the offence. Learned State counsel 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 11 months and 09 days.. Investigation is complete. He also submits that the charges have SWARNJIT SINGH been framed on 25.08.2025 and out of a total of 21 prosecution witnesses, 05 2026.04.22 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M M-20527-2026 (O&M) -3- have been examined.
5. Mr. Manish Dhankhar, Advoocate has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant and has not diisputed the averments made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
7. 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, 40, relevant paras whereof reads thu 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 punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty 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 li liberty, berty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances circumstances."
8. 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 off offence, ence, severity of the punishment and prima facie,, the involvement of the accused and the material on record.
9. Reverting to the case in hand, it is borne out from the record SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.04.22 18:11 that at charges came to be framed on 25.088.2025. Yet, only 05 out of 21 cited I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M M-20527-2026 (O&M) -4- prosecution witnesses have ha been examined. The pace of the proceedings, thus, indicates that the conclusion of trial is not imminent. The petitioner has already remained in actual custody for a period of 11 months and 09 days.
days It
has also been
b submitted that the petition
oner and the prosecutrix, both beeing
major, havve solemnized marriage.
10. While
hile the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, petitioner, 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 tri trial, al, the antecedents of the accused, and the likelihood of his absconding or influencing the course of justice.
11. Presently, no material has been placed on record to suggest that the petitioner poses a flight risk or that hher release would impede the fair conduct of the trial. Moreover, it is noted that the material witnesses i.e. the complainant and the prosecutrix, during the course of their examination before the trial Court, did not support the prosecution version and have been declared hostile. While it is settled that the probative value of such testimony is a matter for appreciation ap at the stage of final adjudication of the case, yet, even while refraining from entering into any conclusive evaluation thereof, this factum cannot be completely overlooked. Therefore, upon taking into account all the considerations stated herei hereinbefore, nbefore, 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 petitioner, in the backdrop SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.04.22 18:11 of the pace of the proceedings and the substantial period of incarceration I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M M-20527-2026 (O&M) -5- 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 pre-trial trial incarceration does d not ot assume a punitive character. The prolonged incarceration, without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future, would also run contrary to the settled legal principle that 'bail is the 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.
12. Without commenting anything on the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice the trial, the present petition is allo allowed wed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing adequate bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. The petitioner shall also abide by the following conditions:
conditions:-
(i) The petitioner titioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s).
(iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, ed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(iv) The petitioner 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 petitioner 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.
13. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.04.22 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M M-20527-2026 (O&M) -6-
14. However, nothing stated above shall be construed as a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court would proceed independently of the observations made in the present case which are only for the purpose of adjudicating the pres present bail petition.
15. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(KIRTI SINGH)
JUDGE
April 22,, 2026
202
SwarnjitS
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whethe reportable : Yes/No
SWARNJIT SINGH
2026.04.22 18:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document