Punjab-Haryana High Court
Xxxxxxxxxxxx vs Xxxxxxxxxxxx on 23 April, 2026
CRM-M--18554-2026 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(122+2100)
CRM-M-18554-2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 23.04.2026
6
PAVANDEEP SINGH ALIAS PAWANDEEP SINGH
......Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH
Present: Mr. Bhavesh Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Yadwinder Singh, AAG, Punjab
****
KIRTI SINGH,
SINGH J. (ORAL)
CRM-177704-2026 This is an application under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer for amendment in the headnote and the prayer claause of the petition, wherein tthe charge for offence punishaable under Secction 17 of POCSO Act, besiddes Sections 65(1) BNS [erstwhile hile Section 376(3)] and Section 6 of POCSO Act ha has been framed by the learned Trial Court against the applicant/petitioner vide order dated 17.01.2026.
Heard.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the Registry is directed to carry out necessary corrections in headnote and the prayer clause of the petition petition,, subject to all just exceptions. SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.04.23 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M--18554-2026 (O&M) -2-
MAIN CA
ASE
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.32 dated 08.03.2025,, under Sections 64, 6 3(5) of BNS, 2023, (correspponding to Sections 376, 34 IP PC), Sections 5, 5 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 aand (Sections 65(1), 123, 137(2)) of BNS, 20223 added subsequently (correspoonding to Sections 376(3), 328, 363 3 IPC), registered at Police Station Nihal Siingh Wala, District Moga.
2. The contents of the FIR are reproduced below:
below:-
"Statement ment of Nirmal Singh son of Surjeet Singh son of Bhagat Singh resident of Near Gurudwara Baba Jeewan Singh, Madheke Road, Nihal Singh Wala, District Moga, aged about 44 years, M.No.98145-xxxxx.. Stated that I am resident of above mentioned address and is a laborer. My marriage was solemnized about 17 years ago with xxxx resident of Bughipura, District Moga, from whom, I have four daughters. The elder daughter is xxxxx aged about 15 years, younger to her is xxxx aged about 14 years, younger unger to her is xxxx aged about 08 years and youngest to all is xzxxx aged about 04 years. My daughter xxxxx,, whose date of birth is 18.08.2010, is studying in tenth standard in Government Senior Secondary School, Nihal Singh Wala. On 224.02.25, my daughter zxxxxxx got ready as usual and had left for school. I was also out of house in relation to my work. My daughter's school gets over at 03 PM. When my daughter did not reach home till 3:15 PM or 3:30 PM. then we started searching our daughter. On 1.3.25, we learnt that Pawandeep Singh's mother zxxxxx wife of Nirmal Singh alias Nimbu resident of Madheke Road, Nihal Singh Wala was standing with my daughter xxxxx at Jagraon, from where, we brought back our daughter xxxxxx and xxxx escaped for somewhere. After returning home, my daughter narrated the whole story by stating that when I was going to school, then Pawandeep Singh alias Kali son of Nirmal Singh alias Nimbu resident of Madheke Road, Nihal Singh Wala made me to sit on his motorcycle and took me to his house. None was present in the house. He administered me some intoxicating substance in water and I fell unconscious. After sometime, I gained consciousness and Pawandeep Singh and one another boy, who was being ca called lled by him as Charanjeet Singh, both of them made me to sit in the mid of motorcycle and after sitting for about 10 minutes in the house of Charanjeet Singh at Dhurkot Ransih, they held some discussion with SWARNJIT SINGH each other. Thereafter, Pawandeep Singh made me to sit on his 2026.04.23 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and motorcycle and took me to somewhere else, regarding which, I know integrity of this document CRM-M--18554-2026 (O&M) -3- nothing. We went to a house, where, he lodged me in a room and also brought tea, water and food for me, which I eaten up. Thereafter, I became unconscious, where, he did illicit act with me When I woke up in the morning. I had no cloth on my body. When I asked him about it, then he again did illicit act with me forcefully and without any consent and for whatever time. I remained there, he kept on doing forceful acts with me. On 55.3.25, .3.25, my daughter felt unwell and we took her to Civil Hospital, Nihal Singh Wala, where, the whole story was narrated to the doctor sahib and he directed us to visit Civil Hospital, Moga. On 6.3.25, I got my daughter admitted in Civil Hospital, Moga. Pawandeep andeep Singh did very wrong with my daughter, against whom, legal action be taken and justice be delivered to me. Statement got recorded to you, read over. which is correct." Sd/- Sd/ Nirmal Singh above"
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case on the statement made by the father of the prosecutrix. It is submitted that the petitioner and a the proseccutrix, belonging to similar age bracket, were well-acquainted with w each otheer. The said fact can be evincedd from the photographs of the two t annexed at a Annexure P-2. Learned counsel submits that, a bare perusall of the statem ment of the prosecutrix, age of w whom is a disputed question of fact, fa recorded before the learned Magistratee, reveals that she did not leevel allegationns qua any overt act against the petitioner. Even otherwise, there is no cogentt evidence on record to establissh the alleged offences against the petitionerr. The 19-year-old petitioner has already undergone an actual custody of 01 year, 01 month and 11 days days. There is no other case registeered against hiim.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions ions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He,, upon instructions from the Investigating Offficer concerned, states that the SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.04.23 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M--18554-2026 (O&M) -4- petitioner was actively involved in the 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 01 year, 01 month and 11 days.. Investigation is complete. He also submits that the t charges have been en framed on 17.01.2026 and out of a total of 14 1 prosecution witnesses, none hhas been examined.
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. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, 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 appe appearance arance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative 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 at 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 tha thatt 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 liber liberty, ty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances circumstances."
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 SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.04.23 18:25 evidence, must take into consideration the nature of the offenc I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document offence, e, severity of CRM-M--18554-2026 (O&M) -5- the punishment and prima facie,, the involvement of the accused and the material on record.
8. Reverting to the case in hand, no overt allegation has beeen levelled against the 19 year old petitioner in the statement of the prosecuttrix recorded before the learned Magistrate. Moreover, charges in the pressent case came to be framed on 17.01.2026.. Yet, none out of 14 cited prosecution witnesses has 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 01 year, 01 month and 11 days.
9. While hile the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, and the culpability, 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 antecedent antecedentss of the accused, and the likelihood of his absconding or influencing the course of justice.
10. Presently, ently, no material has been placed on record to suggest that the petitioner poses a flight risk or that his release would impede the fair conduct of the trial. Therefore, upon taking into account all the considerations stated herein-before, herein before, and without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case lest it may prejudice the trial, this Court is of the t opinion that the continued detention of the petitioner, in the backdrop of the pace of the proceedings and the substantial period of incarceration already SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.04.23 18:25 undergone, would not advance the cause of justice. The guarantee of I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M--18554-2026 (O&M) -6- 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 not assume a punitive character. The prolonged incarceration, without the prospect of the trial being concluded in tthe he 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.
11. Accordingly, without ithout comme commenting nting anything on the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice the trial, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing adequate bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned learne learned d trial Court/Duty Magistrate. The petitioner shall also abide by the following conditions:
conditions:-
(i) The petitioner 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, unless personal presence is exempted.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused oof,f, 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.
12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.04.23 18:25 before this Court.
I attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this document
CRM-M--18554-2026 (O&M) -7-
13. 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 present bail petition.
14. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(KIRTI SINGH)
JUDGE
April 23,, 2026
202
SwarnjitS
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whethe reportable : Yes/No
SWARNJIT SINGH
2026.04.23 18:25
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document