Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajesh Kumar vs State Of Ut, Chandigarh on 10 November, 2025
CRM-M-47233-2025(0&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
225
CRM-M-47233-2025(0&M)
Date of decision: 10.11.2025
RAJESH KUMAR ...- Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF UT, CHANDIGARH ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH
Present: Mr. G.S.Bal, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Avtar Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner(s).
Ms. Sharmila Sharma, Addl. PP, UT, Chandigarh.
26 2 2K 2K 2
KIRTI SINGH. J.(Oral)
The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Section 483
BNSS Act for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.74 dated
23.05.2025, under Section 74 of BNS and Section 10 of POCSO ACT, registered
at Police Station Sector 11, Chandigarh.
KAVITA NAIN
2025.11.11 17:57
| agree to specified portions
of this document
The contents of the aforesaid FIR are reproduced herein below:-
"Statement of xxx wife of Mohmad Astshan, resident of House
Noa.3855, Sector 25, Chandigarh, aged 30 years, Mobile No.xxx stated
that I am resident af above address and stay with my family and f ama
housewife. f have two children. Name of elder daughter is xxx aged 8
years and younger son xxx aged 6 vears. Today my daughter xxx went
io grocery shop situated in 3149, Sector 25, Chandigarh which is
being run by Rajesh from his house. After sametime my daughter
returned with goods and came weeping. On my asking as to what had
happened, my daughter xxx told me that shapkeeper uncle Rajesh had
touched my breast and that is why she was weeping. When I was going
to the shap of Rajesh along my daughter, on the way f met Sonia wife
of Ashok Kumar, resident of House No.3151, Sector 25, Chandigarh
CRM-M-47233-2025(O0&M) 2025: PHA 159227
and Anupam wife of Sunil, resident of House No.2875, Sectar 25,
Chandigarh and they enquired about the cause of weeping of my
daughter, I told them about the teasing of my daughter bv Rajesh.
Thereafter both of them told me that Rajesh has also committed same
action with their daughters xxx aged 10 years and xxx 11 years two
days age. When our daughters went to take some items from his shop,
he touched their breast and they also returned weeping. Thereafter I
along with my daughter sox, xxx along with her daughter, xxx along
with her daughter xxx reached the shop of Rajesh. There he started
arguing with us. On this we called 112. Rajesh has teased
(chherkhaant) and touched breast with Ais hands. Legal action be
taken against him. I have got my statement recorded which has been
read over to me and is correct."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been
falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of the statement made by the
mother of the prosecutrix, alleging that the petitioner, who runs a grocery shop
from his residence, had inappropriately touched her minor daughter when she had
gone to purchase household items. It is submitted that there existed a monetary
dispute between the petitioner and the complainant, as the petitioner is running a
grocery shop, because of which the instant FIR has been lodged against the
petitioner based on concocted allegations. The material witnesses stand examined
before the learned trial Court. The petitioner, aged 54 years has undergone an
actual custody of 05 months and 18 days. He has clean antecedents and there 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. She 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 05 months and 18
days and there is no other case registered against the present petitioner. She on
instructions, submits that the charges were framed on 12.08.2025 and out of a total
KAVITA NAIN
2025.11.11 17:57
| agree to specified portions
of this document
CRM-M-47233-2025(0&M)
of 13 prosecution witnesses, four have been examined till date. She, however,
submits that in view of the serious allegations against the petitioner, petitioner is
not entitled to the concession of regular bail.
5. Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
6. From a perusal of the case in hand, it transpires that the petitioner is
behind the bars since 23.05.2025. Investigation is complete. The final report under
Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented before the concerned Court and trial of the case
has not made much progress, as charges were framed on 12.08.2025 and out of a
total of 13 prosecution witnesses, four have been examined till date. The
culpability, if any, would be determined at the time of trial. No useful purpose
shall be served by further detention of the accused/petitioner. Keeping the
petitioner in further detention without the prospect of the trial being concluded in
the near future, would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India including the right to speedy trial, and is against the principle
"Bail is a rule, jail is an exception" as elucidated in the judgment of Apex Court in
"Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another", (2018) 3 SCC 22.
7. Without commenting 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 learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. The petitioner
shall also abide by the following conditions:-
(1) 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,
KAVITA NAIN
2025.11.11 17:57
| agree to specified portions
of this document
CRM-M-47233-2025(O0&M) 2O2EPHNC 154227 8
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 her from disclosing such facts to the Court
or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
(KIRTI SINGH)
10.11.2025 JUDGE
Kavita
Whether speaking/reasoned.__: Yes/No
Whether Reportable. : Yes/No
KAVITA NAIN
2025.11.11 17:57
| agree to specified portions
of this document
