[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Xxxxxxxxxxxx vs Xxxxxxxxxxxx on 27 April, 2026

                       CRM-M
                           M-53531-2025 (O&M)            -1-




                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                                              CHANDIGARH
                     (116)
                                                               CRM
                                                               CRM-M-53531-2025 (O&M)
                                                               Date of Decision: 27.04.2026

                     GURPREET SINGH @ KALU

                                                                                         ......Petitioner
                                                          Versus

                     STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.
                                                                                       .....Respondents
                                                                                       .....Respondent

                     CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH

                     Present:     Mr. Rudresh, Advocate,
                                  Mr. Harpreet Maini,, Advocate for the petitioner.

                                  Ms. Guramrit Kaur, DAG, Punjab
                                                          Punjab.


                                              ****

                     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.408 dated 13.11.2024,, under

Sections 137(1)(b), 137(2), 64 and 96 of BNS and Section 4 of POCSO Act, Act

registered at Police Station City Faridkot,, District Faridkot.

2. The contents of the FIR are reproduced below:

below:-

"Statement Statement of Pargat Singh, son of Kirpal Singh, son of Kartar Singh, resident nt of Mohalla Talab Thakur Dware Wali Gali, Faridkot, presently resident of Amarjit Kaur, wife of Milkha Singh Dogar Basti, Gali No.06-Right, Right, Faridkot, aged 49 years, Mobile No.81463-xxx, 95017xxxx,, stated that I am resident of the above mentioned address and have passed 9th class and I work as labourer. My wife xxxxx works as house help in the houses of people. I have four children, the eldest is daughter xzxxxxx,, who is married to Manpreet Singh, son of Jangir Singh, resident of Bajakhana, and the younger daughter xxxxx,, aged 16 years and one month (date of birth

21.09.2008), who was got withdrawn from school in the 7th class

CRM-M M-53531-2025 (O&M) -2-

due to taking care of our two young children and other domestic obligations. On 11.11.2024 at 07 A.M., my wife had gone to work in houses ouses of people and I was sleeping at home as previous day I came late to home from work. When my wife returned home from work, it must have been around 8 o'clock in the was not at home. We searched her a lot but could not find her anywhere. We came to know that our daughter zxxxxxx was allured of marriage by Gurpreet Singh alias Kalu, son of Baj Singh, resident of Lubaniawali, Police Station Bariwala, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, has taken to some unknown place or with an intention of committing some other wrong act. Please search and traced out my minor daughter zxxxxxx and the appropriate legal action against the accused Gurpreet Singh alias Kalu, son of Baj Singh, reside resident nt of Lubaniawali be taken. I have got recorded my statement with you in the presence of my wife xzxxxxx,, I have read it, admit it to be correct. Sd/ Pargat Singh. Corroborated he statement of Pargat Singh. Sd/ Sd/- Suman Rani (mother of girl)."

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

has been falsely implicated in the present FIR, which was got lodged after a

delay of about 2 days, on the basis of the statement made by the father of the

prosecutrix, alleging that the petitioner had enticed away his daughter. It is

submitted that the age of the prosecutrix prosecutrix, who was in fact well acquainted

with the petitioner, as can be seen from the screen shots of video calls

annexed at Annexure P-2, P is a disputed question of fact. Furthermore, there

is no cogent evidence on record to establish the alleged ed offences against the

petitioner. In fact, the prosecutrix had initially even refused to get herself self

medically examined. It is further contended that despite multiple

opportunities, the prosecutrix is not coming forward for recording her

testimony, for which reason even bailable warrants have been issued by the

learned Trial Court.

Court Learned counsel submits that the 27 year old petitioner

has already undergone an actual custody of 01 yyear 05 months and 05 days

and has clean antecedents.

Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the CRM-M M-53531-2025 (O&M) -3-

submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. She,, upon

instructions from the Investigating Officer concerned, states that the

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 05 months and 005 days.. Investigation is complete.

She also submits that the t charges have been framed on 24.07.2025 and out

of a total of 15 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined.

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 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 preven 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 deman demands ds 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 circumstances."

8. Trite to say that at the stage of considering a petition seeking

CRM-M M-53531-2025 (O&M) -4-

bail, the Court, though not required to make a roving inquiry into the

evidence, must take into consideration the nature of the 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, it is borne out from the record

that at charges came to be framed on 24.07 07.2025. Yet, none out of 15 cited

prosecution witnesses has ha been examined. Bailable warrants have been

issued to secure the presence of the prosecutrix for recording her testimony, testimony

as has been submitted hereinbefore.

hereinbefore The pace of the proceedings, thus,

indicates that the conclusion of of trial is not imminent. The petitioner has

already remained in actual custody for a period of 01 year 05 months and 05

days.

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

against the 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 trial, the antecedents of the

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

justice.

11. 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

CRM-M M-53531-2025 (O&M) -5-

opinion that the continued detention of the petitioner, in tthe he 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 pre-trial 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 pr principle inciple 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

13. Without commenting 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 learned trial Court/Duty

Magistrate. The petitioner shall also abide by the following 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 Cou Court rt 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 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 Cou Courtrt or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.04.27 18:03

I attest to the accuracy and In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the integrity of this document CRM-M M-53531-2025 (O&M) -6-

prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail

before this Court.

15. 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.

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

disposed of.

(KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE April 27,, 2026

SwarnjitS