Raijan@Rijwan vs State Of Haryana
2026 Latest Caselaw 2439 P&H

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 2439 P&H
Judgement Date : 13 March, 2026

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Raijan@Rijwan vs State Of Haryana on 13 March, 2026

                                                                           1

CRM-
CRM-M-9198-
      9198-2026




119
        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                        CHANDIGARH
                       CRM-
                       CRM-M-9198-
                              9198-2026

Raijan @ Rijwan
                                                               ....Petitioner
                                                                 Petitioner
                                    Versus
State of Haryana
                                                             ....Respondent

Date of Decision: March 13,
                        13, 2026
Date of Uploading: March 13,
                         13, 2026

CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present:-
Present:    Mr. M.D. Khan, Advocate for the petitioner.

            Ms. Priyanka Sadar Thakur, Senior DAG Haryana.

                                     *****

SUMEET GOEL,
       GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Present petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C.

seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner petitioner, in case bearing FIR No.210

dated 26.09.2024, 26.09.2024 registered for the offences punishable under Section 6 of

the POCSO Act, 137 and 351(2) of the BNS ((Section Section 6 of the POCSO and

Section 137,, 351(2) of the BNS were deleted and Sections 137(2), 351(3) of

the BNS and Section 4 of the POCSO Act were added later on) on),, at Police

Station Chhainsa, District Faridabad.

2. The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that on

26.09.2024, complainant 'RA' alleged that he had gone out of station, when

at around 01:30-02:00 01:30 p.m. his wife called and asked him to come home

quickly. When he came at home, he saw his boy 'JO' (name withheld to

protect identity age about 9 years was crying and he told him that minor

1 of 4

CRM-

CRM-M-9198- 9198-2026

victim had gone to buy samosa and he met with the petitioner. When he was

returning home, accused followed him and took him to a millet field and

started forcing him to do wrong things and dirty things and also threatened

to kill him, in case, he revealed the incident to anyone. Accused, also

threatened to do wrong things, next time, with the sister of the minor victim.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner

is in custody since 27.09.2024. Learned counsel has further argued that the

petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned

counsel has further submitted that victim as also the FIR-complainant (father

of the victim) have turned hostile and, thus, trial is not likely to culminate

into conviction. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the

petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 01½ years. Thus, regular

bail is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by

arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature

and, thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail.

Learned State counsel seeks to place on record the custody certificate

dated13.03.2026, in the Court today, which is taken on record.

5. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through

the available records of the case.

6. The petitioner was arrested on 27.09.2024, whereinafter,

investigation was carried out and the challan was presented on 14.11.2024. It

is not in dispute before this Court that total 21 prosecution witnesses have

been cited, and out of which only 03 have been examined till date. It is thus,

indubitable, that conclusion of the trial will take long. The rival contentions;

including the weightage required to be attached to the testimony of the

2 of 4

CRM-

CRM-M-9198- 9198-2026

hostile witnesses, shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This

Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions,

at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been

brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from

the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.

6.1. As per the custody certificate filed by learned State counsel, the

petitioner has already suffered incarceration for 01 year, 05 months and 15

days, & is not shown to be involved in any other FIR(s).

Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an

undertrial is not warranted in the factual milieu of the case.

7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is

ordered to be released on regular bail, if not required in any other case, on

his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned

CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be

imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain

bound by the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.

(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.

(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.

(vi) The petitioner shall give his cell-phone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.