[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Xxxxxxxxxxxx vs Xxxxxxxxxxxx on 22 April, 2026
CRM-M
M-20527-2026 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(217)
CRM
CRM-M-20527-2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 22.04.2026
SATYA KUMAR
......Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH
Present: Mr. Punit Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Anmol Malik, AAG, Harryana.
Mr. Manish Dhankhar, Advoocate, for the complainant.
****
KIRTI SINGH,
SINGH J. (ORAL)
1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short
short- 'BNSS'), is for
or grant of
regular bail to the petitioner, in case FIR No.
No.238 dated 15.04.2025,, under
Sections 127(6) of BNS, 2023 (Section 346 IPC 1860), (later on challlan
presentedd under Section 6 of POCSO A
Act, 2012 and 127(4), 137(2), 87,
64(2), 655(1) of BNS, 2023 (Sections 3344, 363, 366,376(2), 376(3) IP
PC,
1860), registered at Police Station Sector 110, Gurugram, Haryana.
2. The contents of the FIR are reproduced below:
below:-
"To,
To, The Station House Officer, Police Station Sector-10,
Sector
Sir. It is submitted that I, Sanjayy Dubey, son of Rajender Dubey, resident of
Village Navtan Dubey Tolla, Police Station Marhovara, District Chappra,
Saran Vihar, presently residing at House No 73, Gali No an auto 2, Shakti
Park, Gurugram. I work as driver. I have two sons and one daughter
namely xxxx,, aged about 16 years and she has taken the exams of 10th
grade. On 14.04.2025 at about 10 AM, my daughter left the house without
informing anyone and while leaving the house she took around Rs 60000/-
60000/
along with some gold items. My daughter iiss of wheatish complexion, about
4 feet 6 inches tall, slim body, long face and a cut mark on left check.
2026.04.22 18:11 While leaving she was wearing white frock and sandals. I was searching
integrity of this document for her a at my own level but could not find her. Request to scribe a
CRM-M
M-20527-2026 (O&M) -2-
missing report
port of my daughter and she be searched. S/D Sanjay Dubey.
Dubey."
"
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case which was initiaally
lodged ass a missing complaint, on the sttatement made by the father of the
prosecutriix. It is the foremost submission that the age of the prosecutrix iss of
disputed question
q of fact, and that she waas in fact a major when she left her
house on her own free will. It is submittted that being well acquainted with
the petitioner,
petitioner the prosecutrix voluntarily solemnized marriage with him
m on
25.04.20225. In support of this submisssion, learned counsel has placced
reliance on
o the marriage certificate anneexed at Annexure P-2. It is furtther
submitted that there is no evidence onn record to establish the alleg
ged
offences against the petitioner. Even thhe material witnesses, who staand
examinedd before the learned Trial Court have not supported the case of the
prosecutioon and have turned hostile. It is submitted that 27 year old
petitioner has already undergone an actual custody of 11 months and 09
days. Theere 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. He,, upon
instructions states that the petitioner was actively involved in the
instructions,
commission of the offence. Learned State counsel 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 11 months and
09 days.. Investigation is complete. He also submits that the charges have
been framed on 25.08.2025 and out of a total of 21 prosecution witnesses, 05
CRM-M
M-20527-2026 (O&M) -3-
have been examined.
5. Mr. Manish Dhankhar, Advoocate has filed his vakalatnama on
behalf of the complainant and has not diisputed the averments made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the
parties.
7. Before proceeding, a gainful reference can be made to the
observations passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v.
CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40,
40, relevant paras whereof reads thu
thus:
"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
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 li liberty,
berty,
save in the most extraordinary circumstances
circumstances."
8. 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 of the off
offence,
ence, severity of
the punishment and prima facie,, the involvement of the accused and the
material on record.
9. Reverting to the case in hand, it is borne out from the record
that
at charges came to be framed on 25.088.2025. Yet, only 05 out of 21 cited
CRM-M
M-20527-2026 (O&M) -4-
prosecution witnesses have
ha been examined. The pace of the proceedings,
thus, indicates that the conclusion of trial is not imminent. The petitioner has
already remained in actual custody for a period of 11 months and 09 days.
days It
has also been
b submitted that the petition
oner and the prosecutrix, both beeing
major, havve solemnized marriage.
10. While
hile the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations levelled
against the petitioner,
petitioner, 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 tri
trial,
al, the antecedents of the
accused, and the likelihood of his absconding or influencing the course of
justice.
11. Presently, no material has been placed on record to suggest that
the petitioner poses a flight risk or that hher release would impede the fair
conduct of the trial. Moreover, it is noted that the material witnesses i.e. the
complainant and the prosecutrix, during the course of their examination
before the trial Court, did not support the prosecution version and have been
declared hostile. While it is settled that the probative value of such testimony
is a matter for appreciation
ap at the stage of final adjudication of the case, yet,
even while refraining from entering into any conclusive evaluation thereof,
this factum cannot be completely overlooked. Therefore, upon taking into
account all the considerations stated herei
hereinbefore,
nbefore, 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 petitioner, in the backdrop
of the pace of the proceedings and the substantial period of incarceration
CRM-M
M-20527-2026 (O&M) -5-
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
pre-trial
trial
incarceration does
d not
ot 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
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
12. Without commenting anything on the merits of the case, lest it
may prejudice the trial, the present petition is allo
allowed
wed 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:
conditions:-
(i) The petitioner
titioner 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,
ed, 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 him from
disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or
tamper with the evidence.
13. 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.
CRM-M
M-20527-2026 (O&M) -6-
14. 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 pres
present bail petition.
15. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of.
(KIRTI SINGH)
JUDGE
April 22,, 2026
SwarnjitS
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whethe reportable : Yes/No
