[Cites 12, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Xxxxxxxxxxxx vs Xxxxxxxxxxxx on 23 April, 2026

                     CRM-M--18554-2026 (O&M)                 -1-




                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                                           CHANDIGARH
                     (122+2100)
                                                     CRM-M-18554-2026 (O&M)

                                                                   Date of Decision: 23.04.2026
                                                                                              6


                     PAVANDEEP SINGH ALIAS PAWANDEEP SINGH

                                                                                        ......Petitioner
                                                          Versus

                     STATE OF PUNJAB
                                                                                      .....Respondent

                     CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH

                     Present:     Mr. Bhavesh Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

                                  Mr. Yadwinder Singh, AAG, Punjab

                                       ****
                     KIRTI SINGH,
                           SINGH J. (ORAL)

CRM-177704-2026

This is an application under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer for amendment in the headnote and the

prayer claause of the petition, wherein tthe charge for offence punishaable

under Secction 17 of POCSO Act, besiddes Sections 65(1) BNS [erstwhile hile

Section 376(3)] and Section 6 of POCSO Act ha has been framed by the learned

Trial Court against the applicant/petitioner vide order dated 17.01.2026.

Heard.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is

allowed and the Registry is directed to carry out necessary corrections in

headnote and the prayer clause of the petition petition,, subject to all just exceptions.

                      CRM-M--18554-2026 (O&M)                -2-




                     MAIN CA
                           ASE

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.32 dated 08.03.2025,, under

Sections 64, 6 3(5) of BNS, 2023, (correspponding to Sections 376, 34 IP PC),

Sections 5, 5 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 aand (Sections 65(1), 123, 137(2)) of

BNS, 20223 added subsequently (correspoonding to Sections 376(3), 328, 363

IPC), registered at Police Station Nihal Siingh Wala, District Moga.

2. The contents of the FIR are reproduced below:

below:-

"Statement ment of Nirmal Singh son of Surjeet Singh son of Bhagat Singh resident of Near Gurudwara Baba Jeewan Singh, Madheke Road, Nihal Singh Wala, District Moga, aged about 44 years, M.No.98145-xxxxx.. Stated that I am resident of above mentioned address and is a laborer. My marriage was solemnized about 17 years ago with xxxx resident of Bughipura, District Moga, from whom, I have four daughters. The elder daughter is xxxxx aged about 15 years, younger to her is xxxx aged about 14 years, younger unger to her is xxxx aged about 08 years and youngest to all is xzxxx aged about 04 years. My daughter xxxxx,, whose date of birth is 18.08.2010, is studying in tenth standard in Government Senior Secondary School, Nihal Singh Wala. On 224.02.25, my daughter zxxxxxx got ready as usual and had left for school. I was also out of house in relation to my work. My daughter's school gets over at 03 PM. When my daughter did not reach home till 3:15 PM or 3:30 PM. then we started searching our daughter. On 1.3.25, we learnt that Pawandeep Singh's mother zxxxxx wife of Nirmal Singh alias Nimbu resident of Madheke Road, Nihal Singh Wala was standing with my daughter xxxxx at Jagraon, from where, we brought back our daughter xxxxxx and xxxx escaped for somewhere. After returning home, my daughter narrated the whole story by stating that when I was going to school, then Pawandeep Singh alias Kali son of Nirmal Singh alias Nimbu resident of Madheke Road, Nihal Singh Wala made me to sit on his motorcycle and took me to his house. None was present in the house. He administered me some intoxicating substance in water and I fell unconscious. After sometime, I gained consciousness and Pawandeep Singh and one another boy, who was being ca called lled by him as Charanjeet Singh, both of them made me to sit in the mid of motorcycle and after sitting for about 10 minutes in the house of Charanjeet Singh at Dhurkot Ransih, they held some discussion with

each other. Thereafter, Pawandeep Singh made me to sit on his

motorcycle and took me to somewhere else, regarding which, I know

CRM-M--18554-2026 (O&M) -3-

nothing. We went to a house, where, he lodged me in a room and also brought tea, water and food for me, which I eaten up. Thereafter, I became unconscious, where, he did illicit act with me When I woke up in the morning. I had no cloth on my body. When I asked him about it, then he again did illicit act with me forcefully and without any consent and for whatever time. I remained there, he kept on doing forceful acts with me. On 55.3.25, .3.25, my daughter felt unwell and we took her to Civil Hospital, Nihal Singh Wala, where, the whole story was narrated to the doctor sahib and he directed us to visit Civil Hospital, Moga. On 6.3.25, I got my daughter admitted in Civil Hospital, Moga. Pawandeep andeep Singh did very wrong with my daughter, against whom, legal action be taken and justice be delivered to me. Statement got recorded to you, read over. which is correct." Sd/- Sd/ Nirmal Singh above"

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the

petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case on the statement

made by the father of the prosecutrix. It is submitted that the petitioner and a

the proseccutrix, belonging to similar age bracket, were well-acquainted with w

each otheer. The said fact can be evincedd from the photographs of the two t

annexed at a Annexure P-2. Learned counsel submits that, a bare perusall of

the statem ment of the prosecutrix, age of w whom is a disputed question of fact, fa

recorded before the learned Magistratee, reveals that she did not leevel

allegationns qua any overt act against the petitioner. Even otherwise, there is

no cogentt evidence on record to establissh the alleged offences against the

petitionerr. The 19-year-old petitioner has already undergone an actual

custody of 01 year, 01 month and 11 days days. There is no other case registeered

against hiim.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the

submissions ions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He,, upon

instructions from the Investigating Offficer concerned, states that the

CRM-M--18554-2026 (O&M) -4-

petitioner was actively involved in the 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 01 year, 01 month and 11 days.. Investigation is complete.

He also submits that the t charges have been en framed on 17.01.2026 and out of

a total of 14 1 prosecution witnesses, none hhas been examined.

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.

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

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

7. 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 offenc

offence, e, severity of CRM-M--18554-2026 (O&M) -5-

the punishment and prima facie,, the involvement of the accused and the

material on record.

8. Reverting to the case in hand, no overt allegation has beeen

levelled against the 19 year old petitioner in the statement of the prosecuttrix

recorded before the learned Magistrate. Moreover, charges in the pressent

case came to be framed on 17.01.2026.. Yet, none out of 14 cited prosecution

witnesses has 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 01 year, 01 month and 11 days.

9. While hile the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations levelled

against the petitioner, and the culpability, 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 antecedent antecedentss of the

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

justice.

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

the petitioner poses a flight risk or that his release would impede the fair

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

considerations stated herein-before, herein before, and without expressing an opinion on

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

opinion that the continued detention of the petitioner, 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

CRM-M--18554-2026 (O&M) -6-

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 not assume a punitive character. The prolonged

incarceration, without the prospect of the trial being concluded in tthe he 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

11. Accordingly, without ithout comme commenting nting anything on the merits of the

case, lest it may prejudice the trial, the present petition is allowed and the

petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing adequate

bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned learne learned d trial

Court/Duty Magistrate. The petitioner shall also abide by the following

conditions:

conditions:-

(i) The petitioner 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, unless personal presence is exempted.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused oof,f, 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.

12. 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--18554-2026 (O&M) -7-

13. 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 present bail petition.

14. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands

disposed of.

(KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE April 23,, 2026

SwarnjitS