Ram Darshan Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Appellant, an accused in c a se FIR No. 248 dated 02.09.2 0 23, registere d against him under Section 6 of POCSO Act, Section 212 I PC (added la t eron) and Section 3(2)(v) of Sc h eduled Caste and Scheduled T r ibe (Preventi o n of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short “the SC/ST Act”), at Po l ice Station B PTP, District Faridabad, has fi l ed the present appeal for gran t of bail.

¶15

Relevant facts necessary f o r disposal of present appeal are being tak e n from para 3 of the status rep o rt dated 17.4.2026 filed by wa y of affidavit of Rajeev Kumar, Assistant C ommissioner of Police, Cen t ral, Faridaba d . The same are reproduced as u nder:-

¶16

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.05.06 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CRA-S-1028-2026

¶18

-2-

¶19

“3(i). That on 02.09.2023, information was received f r om BPTP police station to Wom e n Police Station Central tha t a letter was received fro m V-CARE MULTISPECIAL I TY HEALTH CENTRE that Su h ani D/o Mukesh Ba, age 14 ye a rs, was admitted to the hospita l for treatment. After sonogra p hy, she was found to be 12 we e ks pregnant. On this informa t ion P/SI reached BPTP police s tation and received the letter f r om MHC police station and Radha w/o Mukesh Kumar R /o 3FF/48, Sector-76, Faridab a d was found present in the po l ice station along with the vict i m girl ‘S” (Name withheld b e ing victim), who presented a w ritten application. The rele v ant portion of the application re p roduced below:“To SHO BPTP Police St a tion Faridabad Sir, my reque s t is that I, Radha W/o Mukes h Kumar, resident of house no. 3FF/48, SEC-76, Faridaba d . I have 03 children, I have t wo daughters and one son. My elder daughter is 17 years old, a nd my younger daughter is 14. Her name is Suhani. My daug h ter Suhani told me that she b ecame friends with Ram, son of Madanlal, through Instagr a m in 2022. Then, on March 27, 2022, she went to meet Ra m in flat no. 5SF in street No. Y -7. This marked the first time m y daughter Suhani and Ram h a d a relationship without her con s ent, and Ram confessed his lov e to her. He deceived her and s aid that she should not tell thi s to anyone. I will marry her. Si m ilarly, Ram called my daughte r to the same flat several times o n the pretext of marriage and h ad physical relations with her . On 27.06.2023 also, Ram h ad

¶20

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.05.06 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

CRA-S-1028-2026

¶22

-3-

¶23

physical relations with my d aughter. My daughter has told me all these things today. Ra m has done a lot of wrong to my daughter. Legal action should be taken against R a m. Applicant- Radha Rani, Mo b ile N. 9999816481.”

¶24

ii. That on the basis o f the application and the med i cal certificate, FIR No. 248 da t ed 02.09.2023 under Section 6 of the POCSO Act was register e d at PS BPTP Faridabad. iii. That after lodging the FIR, the investigation was set i nto the motion and during the c o urse of investigation, the state m ent of the victim girl was recor d ed in presence of the legal adv i sor and on the victim’s ident if ication, the spot was inspe c ted minutely, rough site plan was prepared. Statements of witnesses were recorded. D uring the course of investigat i on, sexual medical of the victim girl was conducted at B .K. Hospital, Faridabad. The d octor in his opinion in MLR N o. 22/PG/CH/2023 enumerat e d, “the possibility of se x ual interaction cannot be ruled o ut.” The photocopy of the ML R is annexed herewith as Ann e xure R-1. On 03.09.2023, the statement of the victim girl “ S” was got recorded under sec t ion 164 Cr.P.C. before the L d . Ilaqa Magistrate, in which she supported the version of co m plaint. The true translated ver s ion is annexed herewith Annex u re R-2. Counselling of the vi c tim girl “S” was conducted by C WC and the complainant produced the birth certificate of her d aughter “S”, according to w h ich the date of birth of the victi m girl is 30.1.2009. The photoc o py of the certificate is annexed h erewith as Annexure R-3.

¶25

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.05.06 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

CRA-S-1028-2026

¶27

-4-

¶28

iv. That during the cours e of investigation, UPT/USG test of the victim was conducted f rom BKH Faridabad. The U PT report of the victim was f o und positive. In the report, AN INTRA UTERINE G-SAC W ITH YOLK SOG WITH FOE T AL NODE OF CRL 59.5 MM C ORRESPONDING TO GAGE OF 12 WEEKS 2 DAYS +1 WE E K. FOETAL CARDIAC ACTI VI TY VISUALISED. EDD: 17/03 / 2024 LEFT ADNEXA SHOW S A CYST OF SIZE 2.7 X 2.2 C M has been enumerated.

¶29

v. That during the co u rse of investigation the victi m ’s mother Radha joined the i n vestigation and presented a c a ste certificate registration no. SC/2019/1821 dated 19.11.2 0 19 pertaining victim, accordin g to which the victim girl belong s to the weaver caste. The w e aver caste comes under the SC category, which has be e n taken into police custody as evidence. Section 3 SC/S T Act was added in the case on 06.09.2023. The caste c e rtificate is annexed herewith as Annexure R-4.

¶30

vi. That thereafter, inves t igation of the case was carried out by Mrs. Monika, Assista n t Police Commissioner, Wo m en Security, Faridabad. Du r ing the investigation, the c a ste certificate number SC/201 9 /1821 dated 19.11.2019 of the victim girl Suhani was ve r ified by Tehsildar Ballabgarh on 16.09.2023.

¶31

vii. That as per the direct i on of CWC, abortion of the vi c tim was conducted from BKH F a ridabad and the foetus was sent to FSL/RFSL No. 23/FSLMB N /2309224362 was submitted to

¶32

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.05.06 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶33

CRA-S-1028-2026

¶34

-5-

¶35

Madhuban on 22.09.2023, d u ring the investigation of this c a se, the date of birth of the vict i m girl was verified on 19.09.2 0 23 from Municipal Corporatio n NIT Faridabad under number 5 69 dated 03.02.2009.

¶36

viii. That Amit Kumar, s o n of Shri Madanlal, residen t of village Balikavas, Post G a urai Block Goda, police sta t ion Iglas, District Aligarh, was f ound to be hiding and helping the named accused Ramdarsh a n, son of Madanlal, residen t of village Balikavas, post Gaur a i Block Goda, police station Ig l as, district Aligarh, by giving h im money, hence section 212 w as also added.

¶37

ix. That during the inv e stigation on 18.04.2024, acc u sed Amit Kumar, son of Sh r i Madanlal, resident of vill a ge Balikavas, Post Gaurai, B lock Goda, Police Station Iglas, District Aligarh, was ar r ested on finding the suffic i ent evidence. During the cour s e of interrogation, he suffered his disclosure statement vide w h ich he admitted his involvement in commission of the said crim e and got recovered a mobile ph o ne with mark Infinix SMART 7, Moidel Infinix X 6517, sky blu e in colour.

¶38

x. That during the cour s e of investigation of the case, on 11.04.2025, the accused R a mdarshan alias Ram alias L a lua son of Gadal, resident of vil l age Balikavas, Post Gaurai, b l ock Goda, police station Iglas, district Aligarh, was arrested on finding the sufficient evi d ence. During the course of interrogation he suffered his disclosure statement vide whic h he

¶39

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.05.06 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶40

CRA-S-1028-2026

¶41

-6-

¶42

admitted his involvement in commission of the said crime a nd he got demarcated the plac e of occurrence and got prepar e d a scale site plan in pursuanc e of the disclosure statement. H is custody certificate is annexe d as Annexure R-5.

¶43

xi. That during the cour s e of investigation of the case, the sexual medical of the acc u sed Ramdarshan alias Ram a l ias Lalua son of Gadal, residen t of village Balikavas, Post Gau r ai, block Goda, police stati o n Iglas, district Aligarh, w as conducted at BKH Faridab a d and medical officer handed o ver DNA sample of the accuse d Ramdarshan for testing and the report FSL/RFSL No. 23/FSLMBN/2309224362 d a ted 12.09.2025 was received a nd same is annexed herewith as Annexure R-6 and as per th e report the foetus is the biolog i cal related with the blood sampl e of accused. xii. That during the cour s e of investigation, no involve m ent of Kamlesh wife of Rampal resident of Chhatarpur, Delhi has been found in hiding or help i ng the accused Ramdarshan. xiii. That on completion of the investigation challan w as prepared and submitted be f ore the Ld. Illaqua Magistrate on 26.05.2025.

¶44

xiv. That the prosecutrix is a minor girl and applic a nt/ accused has committed ag g ravated penetrative sexual ass a ult upon her. The prosecutrix b e came pregnant and her pregnancy was got terminated. The c o nsent of the minor is not a v a lid consent.

¶45

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.05.06 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶46

CRA-S-1028-2026

¶47

-7-

¶48

xv. That the accused Ra m darshan @ Ram @ Lalua is the main perpetrator of the of fe nce, who deliberately establis h ed acquaintance with the mino r prosecutrix and lured her on the false assurance of marria g e, thereby repeatedly commit t ing aggravated penetrative sex u al assault upon her. The mate r ial collected during investigati o n, including the statement of the prosecutrix recorded unde r Section 164 Cr.P.C., and the medical evidence, unequiv o cally establishes the active a nd direct involvement of the a ccused in the commission of the offence, which resulted in t he pregnancy of the minor vi c tim and its subsequent terminat i on. It is further pertinent that the accused remained evasiv e and was arrested only a f ter considerable delay, reflecti n g his conduct of absconding a nd evading the due process of l a w. In view of the heinous natur e of the offence, the vulnerabilit y of the minor victim, and the s t atutory bar under the POCSO Act where consent of a minor is i mmaterial.” 3. Appellant-accused filed suc c essive bail applications before the learned A dditional Sessions Judge, Fa s t Track Special Court (POC S O), Faridaba d . After the dismissal of his 3^r^d bail application vide order d a ted 06.03.20 2 6, the present appeal has been f i led. 4. Learned counsel for the app e llant contends that, appellant a g ed about 22 years, with clean past anteced e nts, has been falsely implicate d in the prese n t case. Had there been subst a nce in the allegations levelled by complain a nt, Victim or her family mem b ers would have initiated crim i nal proceedi n gs against appellant way back i n 2022 when allegedly he (A) h ad

¶49

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.05.06 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶50

CRA-S-1028-2026 -8-

¶51

violated p erson of victim. Only after r e ceiving information from V- C are Multispe c iality Health Centre that a mi n or girl, who had been admitte d in the hosp i tal for treatment was 12 we e ks’ pregnant, the police officials arrived a t the hospital, where they met the ‘Victim’ and her mother, w ho then mo v ed a complaint levelling basel e ss allegations (which have alre a dy been not e d in para 2 of this order). Falsit y of the case set up by complain a nt, further a s per learned counsel is appare n t from the fact that Victim w h en appeared in the witness box as PW2, s h e herself deposed that “no wr o ng was ever committed by accused with her a t any point in time as also that she and accu s ed are emotionally attached a n d in love relationship, further t hat two of t h em would get married as soo n as she attains the marriage a ble age.” La t er, after she was declared Hostile on the request of learned PP a nd was allo w ed to be cross-examined her, s h e clarified that appellant had n e ver maintain e d any physical relations on t h e promise of marriage. Furt h er, during h e r cross-examination by learned counsel for the accused, she th r ew light upo n familial relations between th e two of them and added that her father ha d expressed his desire to get her m arried to appellant but on acc o unt of medic a l issues (Renal Problem) being f aced by him, necessary steps c o uld not be ta k en. She further added that th e elders of the family had finalized their mar r iage.

¶52

It is further the submission of learned counsel that only after seeking a pproval of the family membe r s, the victim and appellant w ere constantl y meeting each other. Family m e mbers were aware but they did not check he r /stop her. Further, from the facts of the case, no offence under the SC/ST A ct is made out, there being n othing to suggest that appel l ant allegedly forced himself on Victim, deli b erately knowing that she was f r om

¶53

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.05.06 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶54

CRA-S-1028-2026 -9-

¶55

a particu l ar community. While relying upon judgment of Bombay H igh Court in Suresh v. State of Maharashtra, 2023(2) AIR BomR (Cri) 340 , learned c o unsel contends that ocular vers i on is to be given primacy vis-à - vis the medi c al version.

¶56

The next leg of submission r aised by learned counsel is that in the wake of both victim and her mother h aving been examined, lenient v i ew deserves to be taken in favour of th e appellant, who was arrested on 11.4.202 5 , as the prospect of trial being c o ncluded in the near further is q u ite remote, f o r out of 22 prosecution witnes s es, 20 still remain to be exami n ed. When v i ewed in the factual scenari o of the case in hand, fur t her incarcera t ion of appellant would not ser v e any useful purpose as the s a me would no t only be violative of his rights u nder Article 21 of the Constitu t ion of India, including right to speedy tri a l but would also be against the principle of “Bail is a general rule a n d incarceration is an excepti o n”. Prayer fo r allowing the appeal has been m ade. 4. Per contra, while opposing t he request for grant of bail, lear n ed State cou n sel accompanied by learned c o unsel for complainant contend t hat the victi m being minor less than 18 y e ars of age, her consent is tot a lly immateri a l. Moreover, the DNA Report clinches the issue against the appellant . Further, in view of the seri o usness and gravity of allegations levelled a s also the fact that victim was found pregnant (which fact sta n ds proved f r om the DNA Report), no case for grant of concession of bai l to appellant is made out. It is further the s u bmission of learned State cou n sel that if gr a nted the concession of bail, the l ikelihood of appellant fleeing f r om the proce s s of justice by not appearing i n Court and overawing complai n ant

¶57

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.05.06 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶58

CRA-S-1028-2026 -10-

¶59

and relat e d witnesses, who have not be e n examined till date is quite h i gh. Dismissa l of appeal has been prayed for. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the documen t s on record.

¶60

It is settled that grant or re fu sal of bail is the discretion of the Court. F actors to be kept in mind wh i le granting the concession of b ail have bee n discussed by the Hon’ble Su p reme Court in several cases. T he essence being that while exercising pow e rs under Section 439 Cr.P.C. ( P ari materia t o Section 483 of BNSS), the C ourt has to take into considera t ion various p a ra meters including the nature o f the charge, evidence, serious n ess and grav i ty of offence, punishments to be awarded to a person, if h e is convicte d , his past antecedents etc. Th u s, there can be no straight ja c ket formula fo r exercising the discretion and e ach case has to be examined o n its peculiar f acts.

¶61

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, h ad held as under:-

¶62

“ 21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid d o wn from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reason a ble amount of bail. The obje c t of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation o f liberty must be considere d a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an acc u sed person will stand his trial w hen called upon. The courts o we more than verbal respect to the principle that punish m ent begins after conviction, an d that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.

¶63

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.05.06 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶64

CRA-S-1028-2026 -11-

¶65

22. From the earliest tim e s, it was appreciated that deten t ion in custody pending completi o n of trial could be a cause of g r eat hardship. From time to tim e , necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should b e held in custody pending tria l to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, `neces s ity' is the operative test. In this c ountry, it would be quite cont r ary to the concept of personal l i berty enshrined in the Constitu t ion that any person should be p unished in respect of any ma t ter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in a ny circumstances, he should b e deprived of his liberty upon o nly the belief that he will ta mp er with the witnesses if lef t at liberty, save in the most extr a ordinary circumstances. 23. Apart from the questi o n of prevention being the object of a refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that a ny imprisonment before conv i ction has a substantial puni t ive content and it would be im p roper for any Court to refuse b ail as a mark of disapprova l of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted f or it or not or to refuse bail t o an un-convicted person for th e purpose of giving him a tast e of imprisonment as a lesson.” Further, Bombay High Cou r t in Suresh’s case (supra) refe r red to the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Co u rt in Manoj and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023(2) SCC 353 and Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 5 SCC 294, wherein, it was h eld as follow s :-

¶66

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.05.06 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶67

CRA-S-1028-2026 -12-

¶68

“7. Further, the Hon'ble Su p reme Court in Manoj and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, [(2023 (2) SCC 353)] , highlighted the need to e nsure quality testing and le s ser possibility of tampering wit h the evidence. No doubt, the D NA testing and the report is bas e d on a well developed science a nd it can lead of a concluded e vidence, still it depends upon the extracting of samples, its preservation and ruling out the possibility of tampering. W h ile considering DNA report f r om the series of the decisions, t h e legal position for DNA profi l ing report and its probative value are concerned, it is emer g ing that the prosecution is duty bound to prove all the steps w h ich were taken by the investigat i ng agency right from collecting the blood samples, preservation etc. We may rely on the decisio n of the Hon'ble Chattisgarh Hi g h Court in Kisan Lal @ Cha m pa Yadav Vs. State of ( 13 ) 9 2 5-apeal-306-2016.odt Chattisg a rh, Criminal Appeal No.565 o f 2022 decided on 22.02.2 0 23, wherein the account of ma n y decisions on the legal aspec t of DNA tests and DNA report has been considered. Further, we may also rely on the deci s ion of the Hon'ble Gujarat H igh Court in Premjibhai Bachu b hai Khasiya Vs. State of Guj a rat and Another, [2009 Cri.L. J . 2888], wherein it has been h eld that :-

¶69

“Positive DNA report can be of great significance, w h ere there is supporting ev i dence, depending of course on the strength and quality o f that evidence, even if it is positive, it cannot conclusivel y fix the identity of the miscre a nt, but, if the report i s negative, it would conclusi v ely

¶70

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.05.06 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶71

CRA-S-1028-2026

¶72

-13-

¶73

exonerate the accuse d from the involvement of cha r ge. The science of DNA i s at a developing stage and w h en the Random Occurrence Ratio is not available for In d ian Society, it would be ri s ky to act solely on a positive D NA report, because only if the DNA profile of the acc u sed matches with the foe t us, it cannot be considered as a conclusive proof of p a ternity. Contrarily, if it is soli t ary piece of evidence with negative result, it w o uld conclusively exclude t h e possibility of involvement o f the accused in the offenc e . The positive DNA report ca n not be therefore accepted by the trial Court in isolation, i.e. as sole piece of evi d ence to record the convictio n of accused under Sectio n s 376, 366 of Indian Penal Cod e " ( 14 ) 925-apeal-306- 2 016.odt 8. Further, reliance can be placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R anjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sha r ma Vs. State of Maharashtra, [ ( 2005) 5 SCC 294], wherein it has been held that :-

¶74

“DNA evidence may have a great significance w h ere there is supporting ev i dence, dependent, of course, on the strength of that evidence.

¶75

........in every case one has to put the DNA evidence in the context of the rest o f the evidence and decide whe t her taken as a whole it do e s amount to a prima facie case.”

¶76

Keeping in view the referre d law as mentioned hereinabov e as also in v iew of the submissions adv a nced by learned counsel for the appellant , but without adverting to th e merits of the case, lest it m ay prejudice the trial, this Court is of the opinion that in the factual scenari o of the case i n hand, appellant who is in cu s tody since 11.4.2025, deserves the concessi o n of bail as the issue of relative relevance of FSL/medical evide n ce

¶77

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.05.06 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶78

CRA-S-1028-2026

¶79

-14-

¶80

vis-à-vis o cular version would be apprec i ated by the learned trial court after both the p arties lead their evidence.

¶81

Resultantly, appellant is gra n ted the concession of bail sub j ect to his f u rnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned t rial Court/Du t y Magistrate concerned. The a p pellant shall abide by the follo w ing

¶82

condition s :-

¶83

(i) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence du r ing the trial. (ii) The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶84

(iii) The appellant shall s urrender his passport before the learned trial Court and shall not leave the country wit h out prior permission of the trial C ourt.

¶85

(iv) The appellant shall n o t commit an offence similar to the offence of which, he is an a c cused, or for commission of w h ich he is suspected of.

¶86

(v) The appellant shall n ot directly or indirectly coe r ce, induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dis s uade him/her from disclosing s u ch facts to the Court or to an y police officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner.

¶87

(vi) The appellant shall not in any manner misuse his libe r ty. (vii) The appellant shall furnish his address and mo b ile number to the Trial Court f orthwith and shall not change the same till the conclusion of t h e trial and in case for any rea s on, the appellant seeks to chan g e any of the aforesaid, the s a me shall be done only with pr i or intimation to the learned Tr ial Court, stating the reason for the same.

¶88

(viii) The appellant will ap p ear before the trial Court on e a ch and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific orde r of Court.

¶89

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.05.06 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶90

CRA-S-1028-2026 -15-

¶91

(ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any o t her condition, as deemed appro p riate while releasing the appell a nt.

¶92

Accordingly, the present ap p eal is allowed and it is made c l ear that in ca s e there is any breach of the afo r esaid conditions, the State shal l be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as g r anted to the appellant by this or d er. 10. In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein ar e limited for the purpose of pre s ent proceedings and would no t be construe d as an opinion on the merits of t he case and the trial would proceed independ e ntly of the aforesaid observatio n s.

¶93

01.05.202 6		(AARADHNA SAWHNEY JUDGE )
gbs
	Whether Speaking/reasoned	: Yes/No
	Whether Reportable	: Yes/No

¶94

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.05.06 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Ram Darshan v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Darshan v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhaskar Saini @ Labbi Vs State of Punjab

Kulwinder Kaur and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Ankit Vs State of Haryana and Another

Sahil Vs State of Haryana

Akash Deep Singh @ Rakesh @ Kaka Alias Kaku Alias Akashdeep Vs State of Punjab

Bahid Ali @ Rajudin Vs State of Punjab