[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Xxxxxxxxxxxx vs Xxxxxxxxxxxx on 9 April, 2026
CRM-M-69958-2025 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(122) CRM-M-69958-2025
Date of Decision: 09.04.2026
AMRIK SINGH .....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF UT CHANDIGARH AND ANOTHER .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH
Present: Ms. Ramneet Kaur, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Simsi Dhir, APP, UT, Chandigarh.
****
KIRTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)
1. The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 of BNSS has
been invoked for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 195
dated 19.09.2024 under Section 65(1) of BNS and Section 6 of POCSO Act,
registered at Police Station-36, Chandigarh (Annexure P-1).
2. The translated version of the FIR is reproduced below:-
"Copy of statement, statement of xxxx d/o of Ranjit Singh r/o Raiyan
Distt Bathinda age approx. 16 years Mobile No. 977939xxxx, stated that I
resident of the above given address and I am an illiterate. I have two sisters and
one brother. My elder sister is married at xxxx and younger to her is xxxx w/o
Gurvinder Singhs s/o Jagdev Singh r/o Gadd P.S. Joga, district Mansa. My
mother has undergone surgery and my sister Rxxxx mother-in-law xxxx r/o Radd,
district Mansa, gave my mobile No. to Amrik Singh and Amrik Singh started
talking to me from his Mobile no. 7740023856 and he under the pretext of getting
a job for me called me to Chandigarh. Yesterday morning i.e on 05.09.2024 I sat
in the bus for Chandigarh and Amrik Singh called on my Mobile no. 836046xxxx
from his mobile no. 7740023856 asking me to come to Ludhiana bus stand and
he will pick me up from there. I alighted from the bus at Ludhiana bus stand and
Amrik Singh was standing there with a big white car, who made me sit in the car
and said that he will get me a job in Chandigarh and he took me to a hotel in
Chandigarh and there forcibly committed rape upon me in the room and then
called at my house and asked me to get Rs 50,000/- transferred from my family
into his account for getting the job. Then my family members transferred Rs
20,000/- using scanner provided by Amrik Singh. He told me that he will call me
again and gave Rs 500/- to me and made me sit in a bus which was going to
Bathinda. On 05.09.2024 what time I left from home and reached Chandigarh at
10:00 'o'clock. Amrik Singh s/o unknown and Sarabjit Kaur@ Aman have
cheated on the pretext of getting me a job and sexually assaulted me. Initiate
action against them. RTI Pooja@ Manveer Kaur d/o Surjeet Singh attested by
Amandeep Singh s/o Mehar Singh r/o Rampura verified by Jaswinder Kaur
Inspector P.S. Women Bathinda, duty P.S. Phool Distt. Bathinda."
3. As per the report of the registry, notice to respondent no.2 could
not be issued for want of process fee.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner,
aged 33 years, has been falsely implicated on the basis of statement made by
the prosecutrix, alleging that he sexually assaulted her on the pretext of
securing employment. It is submitted that a bare perusal of the FIR reveals
that the prosecutrix, age of whom is a disputed question of fact, used to
voluntarily meet and travel with the petitioner, which fact was even in the
knowledge of her parents. It is submitted that there is no cogent or reliable
evidence on record to substantiate the allegations leveled against the
petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has already undergone
an actual custody of 01 years 04 months and 23 days.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that
there are specific and serious allegations against the petitioner of committing
aggravated penetrative assault on the minor prosecutrix, aged between 14-16
years as per her ossification test. She states that the petitioner was actively
involved in the commission of the offence. She, on instructions from SI
Asha, submits that the charges were framed on 02.12.2024 and out of 19
cited prosecution witnesses, 07 have been examined till date. She further
submits that a custody certificate has been filed in Court today and the same
is taken on record, which reflects that the petitioner has undergone actual
custody of 01 years 04 months and 23 days. She has also placed on record
the forensic report, as per which, DNA profile of more than two males was
recovered from the vaginal swabs of the prosecutrix, and one has matched
with the DNA profile of the present petitioner. She submits that in view of
the serious allegations against the petitioner, he is not entitled to the
concession of regular bail.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7. 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.
8. In the present case, charges have been framed in relation to
offence under Section 6 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.
9. Reverting to the case in hand, specific allegations regarding the
commission of grave and heinous offences involving repeated penetrative
sexual assault upon a minor victim, stated to be between 14-16 years of age
at the time, have been levelled against the petitioner. The statement of the
prosecutrix recorded under section 183 BNSS and her testimony as a
prosecution witness, are steadfast with respect to the allegations. Moreover,
the DNA profile obtained from the vaginal swabs of the prosecutrix has
matched with the DNA of the petitioner. Accordingly, in view of the gravity
of the alleged offence and the prima facie material on record, this court is
not inclined to grant the concession regular bail to the petitioner.
10. Accordingly, the instant petition stands dismissed.
11. Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as an
expression on the merits of the case.
12. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of
accordingly.
(KIRTI SINGH)
JUDGE
April 09, 2026
Ritika
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
