[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Xxxxxxxxxxxx vs Xxxxxxxxxxxx on 7 April, 2026
CRR-346-2025 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(127) CRR-346-2025 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 07.04.2026
Mohammad Aftab (minor) through his father ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab .....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH
Present: Mr. P.K.S. Phoolka, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Aakanksha Gupta, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Advocate
for the complainant.
****
KIRTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner has filed this petition assailing the order dated
06.09.2024 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice
Board, Bathinda in BA No.2128 of 2024 and order dated 14.10.2024 passed
by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bathinda, whereby
the petition of the petitioner for grant of regular bail in CRA-460-2024 has
been dismissed in case bearing FIR No.227 dated 22.11.2023 under Sections
376, 506 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station
Canal Colony, District Bathinda.
2. The translated version of the FIR is reproduced below:-
"xxxx Wife of Anil Dass Son of Ganesh Dass resident of Gaun
Bahadur Nagar, Kacheri Tola, PS Mugfsil Munger, District Munger, Bihar,
aged about 25 years. Mobile No. 74819-8xxxx, now on rent of xxxx
resident of Street No.9, Sai Nagar, Bathinda. Stated that I am resident of
above said address and we came to Punjab for earn bread and butter.
2026.04.08 17:34 Shehas two sons. My sister xxxx, who is married with Arun Dass resident
CRR-346-2025 (O&M) -2-
of Nankaar (Bihar) andthey have a daughter xxxx, who is aged about 9-10
years and resides with me. We are residing in Street No.9, Sai Nagar,
Bathinda. In our neighborhood, Mohammad Aftab Son of Mohammad
Israal resident of Gayia Ghat, District Darbanga (Bihar) is residing on
rent since from amonth. Yesterday on dated 21.11.2023, construction work
of Masjid is going on in Street No. 10 and langar (Food) was organized
there. My sister's daughter told me that I am going to eating food from
Langar (Foodjin said Masjid and when my sister's daughter xxxx was
returning back after eating Langar (Food) thenour neighbor Mohammad
Aftab called xxxx and gave her a money for purchasing chips. I thought
that Mohammad Aftab has called xxxx only for purchasing some goods.
When xxxx did not return back for a long and I saw towards the room of
Mohammad Aftab from the wall of my house and I saw 'Chappals of xxx
and Mohammad Aftab outside his room. I had suspected and watched
silently by reaching there, where I saw that Mohammad Aftab was in
naked condition and was lying upon xxxx on a cot. Mustard oil was also
lying there. I went inside and slapped to Mohammad Aftab, he
immediately wore his clothes and by keeping his knife on my neck
threatened that if I disclose about this to anyone, he would kill me. In the
meantime, my elder son namely Thomas aged about 5 years came there
and then Mohammad Aftab kept his knife on his neck after leaving her
andthen I told him that I will not disclose about this to anyone and leave
us. Thereafter, Mohaminad Aftab left me. When I reached inside the room
of Aftab, then trouser (Pajami) of xxxx was off. Then I had checked to xxxx
after coming to home and blood wss oozing slightly from her vagina.
Earlier being under treat. I did not disclosed to anybody and when I came
to know that Mohammad Aftab had left from his house at around
03:00/04:00PM and then I told about this to my husband. Earlier, we were
afraid and now today we came to police post to take legal action. I have
told you about entire incident. The time of occurrence is 12:00PM of
yesterday dated 21.11.2023. My statement recorded by you and I have
listened. Legal action be taken against Mohammad Aftab Son of
Mohammad Isral resident of Gayiya Ghat, District Darbanga (Bihar) for
committing rape with our minor daughter xxxx. Sd/- xxxx above said.
Testified by Sd/- Sukhvir Kaur Inspector, PS Women, District Bathinda
Dated 22.11.2023."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/CCL inter alia submits that
the petitioner/CCL, who was a juvenile aged 16 years at the time, has been
falsely implicated on the basis of the statement of the complainant (aunt of
CRR-346-2025 (O&M) -3-
the prosecutrix), alleging commission of rape upon the minor prosecutrix by
him. It is submitted that under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015, grant of bail to a juvenile is the rule,
irrespective of the nature of the offence, unless specific exceptions are
attracted, which is not so in the present case. The learned trial Court has
failed to appreciate that denial of bail cannot be solely based on the gravity
of the alleged offence, particularly in the absence of cogent evidence
supporting the allegations. He further submits that the petitioner/CCL, who
himself was a minor at the time of the alleged occurrence, is a young man
with clean antecedents, and has already undergone an actual custody of 02
years, 04 months and 14 days.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for
the complainant have vehemently opposed the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner/CCL. Learned State counsel states that the
petitioner/CCL was actively involved in the commission of the offence. She
has filed custody certificate in the Court today and the same is taken on
record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner/CCL has undergone an
actual custody of 02 years, 04 months and 14 days. Investigation is
complete. The final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented before
the concerned Court. The charges were framed on 11.01.2024 and all the
prosecution witnesses have already been examined in the present case.
Learned State counsel, while placing reliance upon the status report dated
01.02.2026 submits that, the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. as well as in her testimony before the learned trial Court
has supported the case of the prosecution. The DNA samples obtained from
the underwear of the prosecutrix match with the DNA of the petitioner/CCL.
CRR-346-2025 (O&M) -4-
Learned State Counsel submits that in view of the serious allegations against
the petitioner/CCL, he is not entitled to the concession of regular bail.
5. Heard the rival submissions made.
6. The POCSO Act, 2012 is a special legislation enacted with a
clear and stringent legislative intent to protect children from sexual
exploitation and abuse, and to ensure a robust deterrent framework.
7. In the present case, charges have been framed in relation to
offence under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, an offence which strikes at the
very core of bodily integrity and dignity of a child. The same attracts the
provisions of Section 29 of the said Act, the bare language of which speaks
about the adverse presumption to be drawn against a person prosecuted for
committing or abetting or attempting to commit any offence under sections
3, 5, 7 and section 9 of the Act unless the contrary is proved, thereby raising
the threshold of satisfaction required. 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 and
gravity of the alleged offence, severity of the punishment and prima facie,
the involvement of the accused and the material on record.
8. Reverting to the case in hand, grave and specific allegations
regarding commission of rape upon a minor prosecutrix, stated to be about
09 years of age at the time, have been levelled against the petitioner/CCL.
The statement of the prosecutrix recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. and her
testimony as a prosecution witness, wherein she has remained steadfast,
when read in conjunction with the MLR and the forensic report whereby
DNA of the petitioner has matched with the samples obtained from the
clothes of the prosecutrix, prima facie establish the commission of the
CRR-346-2025 (O&M) -5-
alleged offences. Therefore, granting the concession of bail to the
petitioner/CCL under these circumstances would defeat the ends of justice.
9. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is not inclined to
grant the concession regular bail to the petitioner/CCL at this stage.
Accordingly, the instant petition stands dismissed.
10. Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as an
expression on the merits of the case.
11. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of
accordingly.
(KIRTI SINGH)
JUDGE
07.04.2026
Ritika
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
