Narender Alias Kala v. State of Haryana and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Jun 2025CRM-M/11224/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab & Haryana High Court, Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj, 05.06.2025, CRM-M-11224-2025 (O&M): regular bail under Section 483 BNSS in FIR No.214/2024 (Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n), 376(3), 212 IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act, P.S. Kharkhoda, Sonipat); prosecutrix aged 15 and mother-complainant declared hostile; Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement of free will; semen on clothing but no evidence of match with petitioner; custody 1 year 26 days; no other case; bail allowed with no-threat/no-influence condition; merits expressly left open to trial Court.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail, subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate, with a direction that the petitioner shall not threaten or influence any prosecution witness directly or indirectly. ¶¶25

Narender Alias Kala Vs State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, accused in FIR No.214 dated 21.04.2024 under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n), 376(3) and 212 IPC, 1860 and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and in custody for 1 year and 26 days, should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

¶¶12

Court's answer

Bail allowed on the totality of circumstances: the prosecutrix's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and her testimony in Court, the testimony of her mother-complainant, and the absence of any scientific evidence relating the semen found on the prosecutrix's clothes to the petitioner.

¶¶24

Ratio / Principle

The petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to regular bail subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate.

¶¶25

Key takeaways

Condition of bail: the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner, directly or indirectly.ratio¶¶25
The observations in the order are not to be construed as an expression on the merits of the case; the trial Court shall decide the case on the basis of available material.obiter¶¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular bail granted under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to the accused in FIR No.214 dated 21.04.2024, P.S. Kharkhoda, District Sonipat, registered under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n), 376(3) and 212 of IPC, 1860 and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. At the post-charge stage (final report 29.06.2024; charges framed 21.10.2024), 19 of 29 prosecution witnesses, including the 15-year-old prosecutrix and her mother-complainant, had been examined; both turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. The prosecutrix's Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement recorded that she went with the petitioner of her free will and nothing wrong happened to her. Although semen was found on her clothes and Salwar during medical examination, the State conceded no evidence showed it matched the petitioner. With custody of 1 year 26 days and no other criminal case against him, bail was allowed subject to surety bonds and a condition of no threat to or influence upon prosecution witnesses; the Court expressly stated its observations were not an expression on the merits.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

207

¶3

CRM-M-11224-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 05.06.2025

¶4

Narender @ Kala ...Petitioner

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

State of Haryana and another ...Respondents

¶7

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ

¶8

Present :- Mr. Samay Sandhawalia, Advocate for the petitioner(s) (through V.C.).

¶9

Mr. Rahul Dev, Addl. AG Haryana.

¶10

¶11

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

¶12

The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.214 dated 21.04.2024, registered under Section 363, 366, 376(2)(n), 376(3) and 212 of IPC, 1860 and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 at Police Station Kharkhoda, District Sonipat.

¶13

As per the summon report, the complainant has already been served on whatsapp but there is no representation on her behalf.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the FIR in the present case has been registered at the instance of the mother of the prosecutrix who got recorded her statement on 21.04.2024 to the effect that her eldest daughter Sxxxxxx aged 15 years was not found at home in the early hours on that day. She expressed suspicion against the petitioner for

¶15

MANGAL SINGH 2025.06.05 20:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

¶17

207 CRM-M-11224-2025 (O&M)

¶18

having enticed her on the pretext of marriage. Thus, the present FIR was registered. The prosecutrix was recovered on 05.05.2024. He contends that on completion of the investigation the final report has been filed on 29.06.2024 and the charges were framed on 21.10.2024. He submits that 19 out of the 29 prosecution witnesses have already been examined including the prosecutrix as well as the complainant. Counsel contends that the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., as it was then, has specifically stated that she had gone with the petitioner on her free will and nothing wrong had happened to her. It is further submitted that in the statements of the prosecutrix as well as the complainant, they have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile. The petitioner has already undergone actual custody for a period of 01 year and 26 days.

¶19

Learned counsel for the respondent-State, on the other hand, contends that during the medical examination, presence of semen were found on the clothes and Salwar worn by the prosecutrix. On a specific confrontation, he however is not in a position to refer to any evidence on the basis whereof it may be concluded that semen specimen found on the clothes of the prosecutrix matched with the petitioner herein. It is further not disputed that the petitioner has been in custody for a period of 01 year and 26 days and there is no other criminal case registered against him. He is also not in a position to dispute that the prosecutrix as well as the complainant i.e. mother of the prosecutrix, have not supported the case of the prosecution.

¶20

MANGAL SINGH 2025.06.05 20:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

¶22

207 CRM-M-11224-2025 (O&M)

¶23

I have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties.

¶24

Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances as also the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and also a testimony in Court alongwith the testimony of her mother-complainant and the absence of any scientific evidence to relate the semen to the petitioner, I deem it fit to allow the instant petition.

¶25

Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted to regular bail subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate. 8. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly.

¶26

The observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the case on the basis of available material.

¶27

(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) 05.06.2025 JUDGE Mangal Singh

¶28

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶29

MANGAL SINGH 2025.06.05 20:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Narender Alias Kala v. State of Haryana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narender Alias Kala v. State of Haryana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nikhlesh Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Sahil Bhatia and Another Vs State of Haryana and Another

Neeraj Kapoor and Another Vs Amit Khatri and Another

Shahnaj Vs State of U.T Chandigarh and Thers

Parveen Vs State of Haryana

Mohit Bhardwaj Vs State of Haryana