[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Xxxxxxxxxxxx vs Xxxxxxxxxxxx on 27 April, 2026

                      CRM-M
                          M-62231-2025 (O&M)                 -1-




                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                                              CHANDIGARH
                     (120)
                                                                   CRM-M-62231-2025 (O&M)
                                                                   Date of Decision: 27.04.2026
                                                                                              6


                     SATENDER @ SATTU @ SATENDER SINGH

                                                                                        ......Petitioner
                                                          Versus

                     STATE OF HARYANA
                                                                                      .....Respondent

                     CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH

                     Present:     Mr. Prashant Singh Chauhan,, Advocate for the petitioner.

                                  Ms.
                                   s. 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.188 dated 12.06.2025,, under

Section 87 of BNS, 2023, (Sections 64(2)(m) and 351(3) of BNS, 2023 were

added later on), on) registered at Police Station Bawal, District Rewari, Haryana.

Haryana

2. The contents of the FIR are reproduced below:

below:-

"Sir, Sir, the applicant prays as under: 1. That I, Lakhmi Chand son of Data Ram resident ooff Banipur, Tehsil and District Rewari, Haryana and I worked in a factory. 2. That my daughter namely xxxx age 21 years who is a student of Government Women College, Bawal, as per routine on 09.06.2025 at about 10:00 at in the night she was sleeping in the room along with her mother. On 09/10.06.2025 in the night at about 02/03:00 Satinder came after jumping the wall of her house and forcefully took my daughter xxxx via of the terrace of the house, we got know about the same at night and I searched for my daughter ughter but could not found in whereabout regarding my daughter xxxx.. 3. It is relevant to mention that aforementioned xxxx is already married and she took away minor girl in the aid of his family and was absconding along with her for a period 2-3 years and after she turned major and xxxx is having two

children. That he is playing with the life of my daughter namely xxxx

CRM-M M-62231-2025 (O&M) -2-

and his family members along with is wife his supporting him. 4. That I have serious suspicion that Nitin son of Babu Lal, Lalit son of Vijay ay Singh, Dheeraj son of Manoj Kumar resident of Banipur are involved in kidnapping my daughter and due to their support Satinder had kidnapped my daughter and took her away. 5. That description of my daughter is as under: age 21 years, colour fair height 5 foot 3 inch, wearing yellow colour suit and pant and wearing slippers. Therefore, it is requested to you that legal action shall be taken against the accused person and my daughter namely xxxxx be searched. I will be highly grateful dated 12.06.2025 applicant Lakhmi Chanfdd son of Sh. Dataram, resident of Banipur, Police Station Bawal, Mobile No.98127 No.98127-xxxxx."

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

petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present FIR, which was got

lodged after a delay of about 3 days, on the statement of the father of the

prosecutrix It is submitted that the allegations of kidnapping and sexual prosecutrix.

assault,, as levelled against the petitioner, remain unsubstantiated by way of

any cogent nt evidence on record. In fact, the prosecutrix had even initially

refused to get herself medically examined. The real factual matrix is that,, the

prosecutrix, secutrix, age of whom is a disputed question of fact fact, was well acquainted

with the petitioner and had voluntarily accompanied him to various places,

including Ajmer and Pushkar,, on his motorbike motorbike. The adverse statements

made by the prosecutrix and even her subsequent medical examination, it is

submitted, was done under pressure from the family family. It is the further

submission that the material witnesses stand examined before the learned

Trial Court.

Court The 25-year-old petitioner has already undergone an actual

custody of 09 months and 18 days. There is no other case registered against

him.

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

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

CRM-M M-62231-2025 (O&M) -3-

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 09 months and 18 days days. Investigation is complete. She

also submits that the t charges have been framed on 12.12.2025 and out of a

total of 23 prosecution witnesses, 06 have ve 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 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."

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

CRM-M M-62231-2025 (O&M) -4-

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 of the record that

charges in the present case came to be framed on 12.12.2025. Yet, only 06

out of 23 cited prosecution witnesses have ve 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 09 months month

and 18 days.

days

9. While hile the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegati allegations ons 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, accusation, the stage of the trial, the antecedents 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,, particularly when the material witnesses stand

examined. Therefore, upon taking into account all the considerations stated

herein-before, before, 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 proceedin

and the substantial period of incarceration already undergone, would not

advance the cause of justice. The guarantee of personal liberty under Article

2026.04.27 18:16 21 of the Constitution of India, which includes the right to a speedy trial,

CRM-M M-62231-2025 (O&M) -5-

obliges the Court to ensure ensu that 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 22.

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

case, lest it may prejudice the trial, the present pet petition ition 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 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 of, or for commission of which he is suspected.

(v) The petitioner shall nott 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.

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

CRM-M M-62231-2025 (O&M) -6-

proceed independently of the observations made in the present case which

are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail petition.

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

disposed of.

(KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE April 27,, 2026

SwarnjitS