Xxxxxxxxxxxx vs Xxxxxxxxxxxx on 27 April, 2026

                     CRM-M
                         M-63656-2025 (O&M) -1-


                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                                              CHANDIGARH
                     (121)
                                                            CRM
                                                            CRM-M-63656-2025 (O&M)
                                                            Date of Decision: 27.04.2026

                     MUKESH KUMAR
                                                                                        ......Petitioner
                                                         Versus

                     STATE OF HARYANA
                                                                                       .....Respondent

                     CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH

                     Present:     Mr. Sanyam Khetarpal, Advocate for the petitioner.

                                  Ms. Saumya Ahluwalia, Senior DAG, Haryana.

                                       ****
                     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.319 dated 04.07.2025,, under

Sections 64(1), 62, 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 117(2), 351(2) & 238 of BNS,

2023, registered at Police Station Mujesar Mujesar, District Faridabad.

2. The contents of the FIR are reproduced below:

below:-

""To, "To, The concerned Police Station Officer and Women Police Station Incharge, Faridabad. Sir, It is humbly submitted that I, xxxx,, daughter of Parmdev Yadav, permanent resident of village Sonepur, P.O. Banyani Basrawari, Ambedkar Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, have been living at my aunt's house for many years, and presently I work in Sector 25,5, Faridabad. My aunt's name is xxxx and uncle's name is Ramchandra Yadav, residing at House No. 196, near Shiv Mandir, Shyam Colony, Phase Phase-4, 4, Sarurpur (27), Faridabad.

Yesterday, dated 28.06.2025, 1 Ums returning home from work and was about 300 meters away from the house, when my uncle Ramchandra chandra called me and asked, "Where are you? I told him that I would reach home in ten minutes. While I was talking on the phone, Mukesh, son of Ashok, suddenly came there, pounced on me, dragged me into the bushes, and pulled me inside forcibly. When he sstarted tarted forcibly trying to remove my clothes, I shouted loudly. By SWARNJIT SINGH coincidence, my phone was still on, and my uncle heard my screams 2026.04.27 18:03 I attest to the accuracy and on the call, so he ran to the spot and reached there. This incident integrity of this document CRM-M M-63656-2025 (O&M) -2-

occurred at around 8:30 PM. While he was forcing himself upon me, Mukesh said, "Remove your clothes." When I refused, he hit me with kicks and punches, and also struck me with something like an iron rod that was in his hand. He tore my clothes, abused me with filthy language, threatened to kill me, and said tha thatt if I did not obey him, he would kill me and my family. He touched my chest and twisted it forcefully, put his hand inside my salwar, and tried to untie the string of my salwar. Meanwhile, my uncle arrived at the spot, and Mukesh left me in that condition and started running away. My uncle stopped him and scolded him, saying, "I will call your father." My uncle also said, "I will call the police." Hearing this, Mukesh got scared and started apologizing, promising never to do such a thing again, and kept begging gging for forgiveness repeatedly. Due to fear of defamation, my uncle did not call the police, and let Mukesh go. When we reached home and told everything to the family members, we were discussing it when suddenly Mukesh came again, along with his brother-in-law law Kamlesh, father Ashok, sister Gunjan, mother, wife, and 4-5 5 other persons, and entered our house forcibly, started beating us all of a sudden. They had sticks and iron rods in their hands. We tried to defend ourselves and pushed them out of the house.

e. In this incident, my uncle and his son got injured. After that, we went to B.K. Hospital and got ourselves medically treated. It is therefore requested, Sir, that Mukesh attempted to rape me, assaulted me, threatened me, and later entered our house and attacked my family with the intention to kill us. While leaving, they said, "It's only 11 o'clock now; we are leaving for now, but we won't spare you; we will kill all of you." Hence, Sir, I humbly request that appropriate legal action be taken against the accused persons, and justice be provided to me and my family. Also, please ensure the safety of our lives, property, and my honor. Applicant: Sd/ Sd/- xxxx"."

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

petitioner has been falsely implicated implicated in the present FIR, which in fact is a

case of version and cross-version, cross version, on the statement of the complainant. It is

submitted that in fact, the complainant side was the aggressor party, and had

inflicted multiple injuries on the accused side, whic which h fact can be evinced

from the photograph(s) and MLR annexed at Annexure P P-3 3 and P-4 P

respectively. Rather, prior to the registration of the present FIR, an FIR had

already been lodged against the family of the complainant with respect to the

violent assault assaul carried out by them. It is submitted that there is no cogent

evidence on record to establish the alleged offence against the petitioner, petitioner

who has already undergone an actual custody of 08 months and 01 day.

integrity of this document                                                           day
                      CRM-M
                         M-63656-2025 (O&M) -3-

There is no other case registered against him. It is also pointed out that five f

of the co--accused accused have already been granted the concession of anticipatory

bail by the learned trial Court.

Court. Reliance in this regard is placed on

Annexures P-5 P to P-9.

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

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

instructions from the investigating officer concerned 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 08 months and 01 day.. Investigation is complete. She also

submits that the t charges have been framed on 04.04.2026 and all of the 18

cited prosecution witnesses are yet to be 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 rial 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 tha thatt detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship.

2026.04.27 18:03 From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons

CRM-M M-63656-2025 (O&M) -4-

should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, "ne "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, ircumstances, 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."

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 offence, severity of

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

material on record.

8. Reverting to the case in hand, it is borne out from the record

that at charges came to be framed on 04.004.2026. Yet, none out of 18 cited

prosecution witnesses has ha been examined. The pace of the proceeding proceedings, s, thus,

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

already remained in actual custody for a period of 08 months and 01 day.

day

Furthermore, five co-accused accused have been granted the concession of

anticipatory bail by the learned Trial rial Court.

9. 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.

CRM-M M-63656-2025 (O&M) -5-

10. Presently, ently, no material has been placed on rec record ord 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 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 already

undergone, would not advance the cause of jjustice.

ustice. 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 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. 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/s bail/surety urety

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 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.

2026.04.27 18:03 (iv) The petitioner shall nott commit an offence similar to the

CRM-M M-63656-2025 (O&M) -6-

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 ttoo 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 h of any of the above conditions, the

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

before this Court.

13. However, nothing stated above shall be construed as a final

expression of opinion on the merits of the case and th thee 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 27,, 2026
                     SwarnjitS
                                    Whether speaking/reasoned        :      Yes/No
                                    Whethe reportable                :      Yes/No


		            