Xxxxxxxxxxxx vs Xxxxxxxxxxxx
2026 Latest Caselaw 3505 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Xxxxxxxxxxxx vs Xxxxxxxxxxxx on 20 April, 2026

            CRM-M-1650-2026                               -1-



                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                            AT CHANDIGARH

            211                                                 CRM-M-1650-2026
                                                                Date of Decision: 20.04.2026

            RAJWINDER SINGH                                            .....PETITIONER

                                             Vs.

            STATE OF PUNJAB                                            .....RESPONDENT

            CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEERJA K. KALSON

            Present:-           Mr. Ajaypal Singh Sandhu, Advocate
                                for the petitioner.
                                Mr. Gorav Kathuria, DAG, Punjab.
                                ****
            NEERJA K. KALSON, J.

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the

Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanita, 2023 seeking grant of regular bail to the

petitioner in case bearing FIR No. 0105 dated 19.07.2025, under Section 75 of

the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(b), 4 of POCSO Act, 2012

(as amended in 2019), registered at Police Station Mallanwala, District

Ferozepur, Punjab (Annexure P-1).

2. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present

petition by the petitioner) is as follows:-

"Statement of xxxxxxx daughter of xxxxx son of xxxxxxx resident of xxxx, Police Station Mallanwala, Mob No.xxxxxxxxx stated that I am resident of above-mentioned address and studying at xxxxxxxx in xxxx. Today, on 19.7.2025, at around 11:30 am, my two brothers xxxxxxx and xxxxxxx had gone to their respective work and my mother xxxxxx had gone to Mallawala to get the gas stove repaired. I was alone at home at that time. My uncle Raja Singh son of Sukhdev Singh resident of village Kamalwala who climbed the wall of our house

and came to me in my room inside our house and tried to rape forcibly removed my pyjama and started trying to rape me and put his finger in my private parts then I came out of my room screaming loudly then my uncle left me while opening the door of our house and ran away. I went to my brother xxxxxx and told him the whole story. In the meantime my mother came from Mallanwala so I told her the whole story and she took me to the Civil Hospital Zira where the doctor came and told him what had happened to me. That my uncle Raja Singh has tried to rape me and has molested my private parts and has also scratched on my face, which I have told you, to take legal action."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has

been in custody since 21.07.2025, i.e. for a period of more than eight months.

Further, it is submitted that a specific role has been falsely attributed to the

petitioner, as the person mentioned in the FIR is Raja Singh, son of Sukhdev

Singh, who allegedly scaled the wall of the prosecutrix in broad daylight at

about 11 a.m., entered the room, removed her lower garments and committed

wrongful acts upon her. The petitioner has categorically denied all these

allegations as false and concocted. It is further submitted that the petitioner,

namely Rajwinder Singh, son of Shivdev Singh, is the distant paternal uncle of

the prosecutrix and has been falsely and maliciously implicated in the present

case on account of longstanding family grudge and personal vendetta.

4. It is contended that the petitioner had returned to India from

Bahrain about two months prior to the alleged incident and had been making

efforts to regularize and further pursue his overseas employment. Owing to the

existing animosity and personal grudge, he has been falsely implicated so as to

diminish his foreign prospects and irreparably damage his career abroad.

5. Learned counsel further submits that the challan has been filed;

however, the same has been presented without the FSL and DNA report of the

victim and the accused. It is also submitted that the material witnesses have

already been examined. It is finally argued that, keeping in view the

contradictions and improvements in the statement of the prosecutrix, absence

of scientific corroboration at this stage, inconclusive medical evidence,

completion of investigation, examination of the prosecutrix, and the period of

incarceration already undergone, cumulatively tilt the balance in favour of the

petitioner.

6. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition, arguing

that the allegations raised are serious in nature and, thus, the petitioner does not

deserve the concession of regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on

record custody certificate dated 19.04.2026, which is taken on record.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through

the available records of the case.

8. The petitioner was arrested on 21.07.2025, whereafter

investigation was carried out and challan stands presented on 06.09.2025. Out

of a total of 17 prosecution witnesses, 7 have already been examined, which

include all the material witnesses. The trial is likely to take a considerable

period of time. It is indubitable that the petitioner has already suffered

incarceration for more than 8 months and 29 days, with the trial nowhere likely

to conclude in the near future. In this regard, it will be apposite to place

reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as "Manish

Sisodia versus Directorate of Enforcement" 2024 INSC 595; relevant whereof

reads as under:-

"50. As observed by this Court, the right to speedy trial and the right to liberty are sacrosanct rights. On denial of these rights, the trial court as well as the High Court ought to have given due weightage to this factor.

51. Recently, this Court had an occasion to consider an application for bail in the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and Another wherein the accused was prosecuted under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. This Court surveyed the entire law right from the judgment of this Court in the cases of Gudikanti Narasimhulu and Others v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh7, Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Others v. State of Punjab, Hussainara Khatoon and Others (I) v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb and Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another. The Court observed thus:

"19. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime."

52. The Court also reproduced the observations made in Gudikanti Narasimhulu (supra), which read thus:

"10. In the aforesaid context, we may remind the trial courts and the High Courts of what came to be observed by this Court in Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, High Court reported in (1978) 1 SCC 240. We quote:

"What is often forgotten, and therefore warrants reminder, is the object to keep a person in judicial custody pending trial or disposal of an appeal. Lord Russel, C.J., said [R v. Rose, (1898) 18 Cox]:

"I observe that in this case bail was refused for the prisoner. It cannot be too strongly impressed on the, magistracy of the country that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment, but that the requirements as to bail are merely to secure the attendance of the prisoner at trial.""

53. The Court further observed that, over a period of time, the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very wellsettled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. From our experience, we can say that it appears that the trial courts and the High Courts attempt to play safe in matters of grant of bail. The principle that bail is a rule and refusal is an exception is, at times, followed in breach. On account of non-grant of bail even in straight forward open and shut cases, this Court is flooded with huge number of bail petitions thereby adding to the huge pendency. It is high time that the trial courts and the High Courts should recognize the principle that "bail is rule and jail is exception."

The rival contention of learned counsel for the parties; as to

whether there is any tangible prosecution evidence available against the

petitioner & as to whether the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the FIR

in question; shall be gone into during the course of trial. This Court does not

deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest

it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to

indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice

or interfering with the prosecution evidence. As per custody certificate dated

19.04.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner, who is aged 29 years,

has already suffered incarceration for more than 8 months and 29 days & is not

shown to be involved in any other case.

Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is

not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.

9. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is

ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the

satisfaction of the learned concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in

addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty

Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.

(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.

(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.

(vi) The petitioner shall give his cell-phone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.

(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.

10. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those

which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed

hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant

shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

11. Ordered accordingly.

12. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of

opinion on the merits of the case.

13. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous

application, if any, shall also stands disposed of.

                                                               (NEERJA K. KALSON)
                                                                    JUDGE
            20.04.2026
            pry
                               Whether Speaking/reasoned      Yes/No
                               Whether Reportable             Yes/No