[Cites 12, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Xxxxxxxxxxxx vs Xxxxxxxxxxxx on 22 April, 2026

                        CRM-M-44529-2025 (O&M)                -1-
                        CRM-M-23689-2025 (O&M)




                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                                                 CHANDIGARH

                        1.                             CRM-M No. 44529 of 2025 (O&M)
                                                       Date of Decision- 22.4.2026

                        Rajveer Singh                                             ......Petitioner


                                                          Versus

                        State of Haryana and another                             .....Respondents

                        2.                             CRM-M No. 23689 of 2025 (O&M)

                        Surya Parkash                                                ......Petitioner

                                                          Versus

                        State of Haryana                                            .....Respondent

                        CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH

                        Present:     Mr. P.S.Ahluwalia, Senior Advocate with
                                     Mr. Deepinder Virk, Advocate and
                                     Ms. Simerpreet Sekhon, Advocate
                                     for the petitioner (in CRM-M-44529-2025).

                                     Mr. Vipin Kumar, Advocate
                                     for the petitioner (in CRM-M-23689-2025)

                                     Mr. Anmol Malik, DAG, Haryana.

                                     Mr. Lakhwinder Singh Sidhu, Advocate and
                                     Mr. Ishan Thakur, Advocate
                                     for respondent No.2 (in both cases).
                                            ****

                        KIRTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)

1. The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023

has been invoked for grant of regular bail to the petitioners in case FIR

No.22 dated 16.5.2024 under Sections 354-A, 376-D, 452, 377, 376(2n), 506

IPC and Section 10/6/18 of the POCSO Act, registered at Police Station

2026.04.22 18:05 Women Dabwali, District Sirsa.


integrity of this order/judgment
                         CRM-M-44529-2025 (O&M)                  -2-
                        CRM-M-23689-2025 (O&M)

2. For the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from the petition

bearing No.CRM-M-44529-2025.

3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner (in CRM-M-44529-

2025) as well as learned counsel for the petitioner (in CRM-M-23689-2025)

inter alia submit that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case

by the prosecutrix-complainant by levelling allegations that both the

petitioners forcibly entered her house and committed rape upon her. On

unsubstantiated averment of mishandling of the prosecutrix and causing

injuries to her has also been made against the petitioner. It is the vehement

contention of the learned senior counsel that petitioner Rajveer Singh

frequently visited the house of the complainant, being related to her

husband, and over time the two developed mutual affections for each other.

The two remained in constant contact, as can be seen from the screenshots of

call records annexed at Annexures P-7 and P-8. However, when the true

facts came to the knowledge of the husband of the complainant, he

concocted a false and fabricated story so as to escape the liability of

returning the money borrowed by his family from the family of petitioner-

Rajveer Singh on various occasions. In fact, on the day of alleged incident

i.e. on 15.5.2024 at about 8.36 P.M., the complainant sent a text message to

petitioner-Rajveer Singh and invited him to her house. However, as soon as

the petitioner arrived, the husband as well as the in-laws of the complainant,

in furtherance of a pre-planned conspiracy, entered the room and started

beating both the petitioners. They also removed the clothes of both the

accused, made their video and demanded Rs.60.00 lacs from them. In this

regard, an application under Section 175 of BNSS seeking registration of the

2026.04.22 18:05 FIR against the complainant and her family members was also moved,

integrity of this order/judgment CRM-M-44529-2025 (O&M) -3- CRM-M-23689-2025 (O&M)

during inquiry into which one Sushil Kumar, cousin of the complainant's

husband, confessed about the recording an objectionable video of the

petitioners as a part of a pre-planned conspiracy. It has further been argued

that petitioner-Rajveer Singh has also filed a petition bearing No. CRM-M-

36632-2025 seeking re-investigation of the present FIR, wherein a direction

was given to the learned trial Court to adjourn the case beyond the date fixed

by this Court, for which reason the charges are yet to be framed, despite the

petitioners having undergone an actual custody of more than 01 year and 10

months. However, now the said petition has been dismissed as withdrawn

by order of even date. It is submitted that the petitioners, both in their late

20s, have already suffered prolonged incarceration due to a protracted trial.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for

respondent No.2 have vehemently opposed the submissions made by the

learned counsel for the petitioners. They state that specific allegations have

been levelled against the petitioners. The learned State counsel, on

instructions from the investigating officer concerned, further submits that in

the present case, challan was presented on 17.8.2024. Moreover, though

there is no other criminal case registered against petitioner-Rajveer Singh,

however, petitioner-Surya Parkash is facing trial in two other FIRs.

Accordingly, the petitioners do not deserve to be granted the concession of

regular bail.

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.

2026.04.22 18:05 CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, relevant paras whereof reads thus:

integrity of this order/judgment CRM-M-44529-2025 (O&M) -4- CRM-M-23689-2025 (O&M)

"21.In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor 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 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 that 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 liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances."

7. Reverting to the case in hand, the following facts are borne out

from the record:

I) Challan in the instant case was filed on 17.08.2024.

II) Since an interim order had been passed in another petition

pertaining to the present FIR, vide which the learned trial Court

had been directed to adjourn the case beyond the date fixed by this

Court, the charges have not been framed till date. The pace of the

proceedings, thus, indicates that the conclusion of trial is not

imminent.

ITHLESH KUMAR III) Petitioner-Rajveer Singh has already remained in actual

integrity of this order/judgment CRM-M-44529-2025 (O&M) -5- CRM-M-23689-2025 (O&M)

custody for a period of 1 year, 10 months and 5 days, while

petitioner-Surya Parkash has undergone a custody period of 1

year, 10 months and 8 days.

IV) While petitioner-Rajveer Singh has no criminal antecedents,

there are two other cases pending against petitioner-Surya

Parkash.

8. While the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations levelled

against the petitioners, and the 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 antecedents of the

accused, and the likelihood of his absconding or influencing the course of

justice.

9. Presently, no material has been placed on record to suggest that

the petitioners pose a flight risk or that their release would impede the fair

conduct of the trial. Therefore, upon taking into account all the

considerations stated hereinbefore, and without expressing an opinion on the

merits of the case lest it may prejudice the trial, this Court is of the opinion

that the continued detention of the petitioners, in the backdrop of the pace of

the proceedings and the substantial period of incarceration already

undergone, would not advance the cause of justice. The guarantee of

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-trial

incarceration does not assume a punitive character. The prolonged

incarceration, without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near

future, would also run contrary to the settled legal principle that 'bail is the

integrity of this order/judgment CRM-M-44529-2025 (O&M) -6- CRM-M-23689-2025 (O&M)

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.

10. As regards the submission regarding the involvement of

petitioner-Surya Parkash in two other criminal cases is concerned, a gainful

reference can be made to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and another,

2012 (2) SCC 382, wherein it was held that the facts and circumstances of

the case at hand are to be seen while deciding a bail application, and grant of

the same cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is

involved in other case(s). The relevant portion of the said judgment is

reproduced herein-below:-

"As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc."

11. Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed, and to ensure that

the interests of justice are adequately safeguarded, the petitioners are ordered

to be released on regular bail upon furnishing of adequate bail/surety bonds

to the satisfaction of the concerned learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate,

subject to the following terms and conditions:-