Kirat Singh Vs State of Haryana and Others

Present: Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Advoca t e for the appellant. Mr. Birender Bikram Abbre y , Addl. AG, Haryana. Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Advoc a te for respondents No.2 & 3.

¶11

¶12

AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (Oral)

¶13

Appellant, an accused in c a se FIR No. 95 dated 10.09.2 0 25, registere d against him under Sections 137, 96, 64(2)(m), 65(1), 308(2), 308(7), 6 1(2)(a) of BNS, Sections 6 a n d 17 of POCSO Act and Sec t ion 3(2)(v) o f Scheduled Caste and Schedul e d Tribe (Prevention of Atrocit i es) Act, 198 9 (in short “the SC/ST Act”), at Police Station Women, Si r sa, District Sirsa, has filed the present appeal for grant of bail. 2. Relevant facts necessary f o r disposal of present appeal are being tak e n from para 2 of the status rep o rt dated 30.4.2026 filed by wa y of affidavit of Raj Singh, HPS, Deputy S u perintendent of Police, Law a nd Order, District Sirsa. The same are repro d uced as under:-

¶14

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.05.15 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

CRA-S-1108-2026

¶16

-2-

¶17

“2. ….Stated that I am re s ident of the abovesaid address a nd stay at home and am learning parlour work. My fa t her Rajender Kumar had died a b out 12 years ago. My mother d oes daily wage labour and we a r e three sisters and one brother a nd I am the youngest. About one month ago, I met Pooja wi fe of Narender, resident of Gali N o.4, Mela Ground, Sirsa, Sat n am Chowk, at Sirsa, when I h ad come here alone to purchase parlour (material/articles). A t that time, Pooja took my mo b ile number and we started t a lking over phone. Her moi b ile number is 98121-90110. A b out one week ago, she had ca l led me to Sirsa. I stayed with h er for one day. She said that she would get me parlour work, but after meeting in Sirsa, she s aid that she had called me just t o meet. The day before yester d ay, on 08.09.2025, Pooja had c ome to Fatehabad in a car al o ng with a boy who disclosed h i s name as Kirat Singh (A), so n of Nirmal Singh, resident of Jhorarnali, Sirsa. She had called me before coming and said that, “Today you come with me; I s h all get you employed in a parlour at Sirsa itself.” Thereafter, she called me to Fatehabad Bu s Stand, and from there took m e to Sirsa to her house. Kirat ( A ) was also with us. Pooja sai d to me that, “I shall get you e mp loyed in a parlour and shall a lso give you ten thousand rupee s ; you go with Kirat for one nig h t.” Then she sent me in the car with Kirat. Thereafter, Kirat t o ok me to some hotel near the bridge on Hisar Road, Sirsa, the name of which I do not remember and there he made phys i cal relations with me twice. Th e reafter, on dated 09.09.2025 K i rat

¶18

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.05.15 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

CRA-S-1108-2026

¶20

-3-

¶21

left me at the house of Poo j a and went away. Neither di d he give any money to me nor t o Pooja for establishing relations with me. Thereafter, at n ig ht, Pooja left me at the Wo m en Police Station, Sirsa and wh i le leaving she said that after g o ing to the Police Station you s h ould give a statement that you do not want to get a rape case r egistered; only call Kirat once a nd when he comes, then by thr e atening him with a rape case, we shall take money, out of whi c h some money I shall given to y ou. Yesterday I had come to the Police Station alone and was v ery frightened. I had told you t o call my mother, and only th e n I would say something in h e r presence. You had asked my mother to come this mornin g , because last night you had left me at One Stop Centre, Sirsa. Today, on 10.09.2025, after the arrival of my mother Darsh a na, I have got my above state m ent written and read it in her presence, without any fear or pressure, which is correct. L egal action be taken against P o oja and Kirat and justice be d o ne to me. Pooja and Kirat have done very wrong with me an d they be punished.”

¶22

During investigation, on 10.09.2025, victim/minor girl ‘S’ w as produced before the Child Welfare Com m ittee, Sirsa for counseling. On the same day, she was produced before the l earned JMIC, Sirsa for getting her statemen t recorded u/s 183 BNSS. S he was also got medico leg a lly examine d from a Doctor in Civil Hos p ital, Sirsa. Detailed report w as prepared, after which a copy thereof a l ong with two vaginal swabs, t wo vaginal s l ide and pubic hair of victim/mi n or girl ‘S’ were handed over to the IO for ge t ting it chemically examined.

¶23

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.05.15 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

CRA-S-1108-2026 -4-

¶25

On the following day, i.e. o n 11.9.2025, co-accused Pooja a nd co-accus e d Manoj Kumar were arreste d and joined in the investigat i on. During t h e course of which, they co n fessed their involvement in the commission of offence along with pres e nt appellant, i.e., Kirat Singh a nd their othe r accused.

¶26

On 12.9.2025, present a p pellant was arrested, who a lso confesse d to his guilt. He was got me d ico legally examined after wh i ch, copy of t he MLR, sealed sample, i.e. u nderwear, pubic hairs, swab f r om glens an d plain blood of appellant we r e handed over to I.O. for fur t her chemical examination. At the instanc e of the appellant, a car bea r ing registrati o n No.HR-24AJ-2306 (make A u ra) was recovered, which was a lso taken int o possession. He also demarca t ed the hotel where he violated the person o f the victim. Statements of the w itnesses were recorded at various stages of investigation. Copy of the Birt h certificate and copy of admis s ion register of Ist Class and admission canc e llation register of the victim/minor girl ‘S’ w ere obtained from Governmen t Model Sanskriti Primary Sch o ol, Swami N a gar, Fatehabad, as per which, t h e victim was born on 09.06.2010. On 18.9.2025, co-accused S andeep Kumar was arrested, w ho also adm i tted to his involvement in the c ommission of offence and fur t her got reco v ered Rs.1000/- which had be e n given by the present appel l ant while getting the room on rent from hi m (Sandeep Kumar). Hotel C C TV footage, h otel register and BSA certifica t e etc. were also collected sho w ing that appe l lant Kirat Singh along with vic t im had entered and exited the h o tel room, w h ich were also taken into posse s sion. Sealed samples were sent to RFSL, H i sar for further chemical analy s is. Since the victim belonge d to

¶27

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.05.15 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

CRA-S-1108-2026 -5-

¶29

Schedule d Caste/Scheduled Tribe comm u nity, Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST A ct was adde d .

¶30

On culmination of invest i gation, challan complete in all respects w as filed in the Court. 3. Appellant-accused filed app l ication for grant of bail before the learned A dditional Sessions Judge, Fas t Track Special Court, Sirsa. T he same wa s dismissed vide order dated 2 0 .3.2026. Aggrieved of which, the present p e tition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the app e llant contends that, appellant w ith clean pa s t antecedents, has been falsel y implicated in the present c a se. Falsity o f the case set up against him by t h e prosecution is apparent from the fact that the star witness of the prosec u tion story while appearing in the witness box as PW1 deposed that she w a s born on 9.6.2005 as also that the present a p pellant did not violate her per s on at any place. Despite the f act that she w as declared Hostile on the requ e st of learned PP and was subje c ted to rigoro u s cross-examination, but nothi n g fruitful to the support of the c ase of prosec u tion could be elucidated theref r om.

¶31

Continuing further, learned c ounsel contends that on the si m ilar lines is t h e statement of her mother, who appeared as PW2. Attention of the Court ha s also been drawn to the copy of the RFSL Report, wherein it w as opined as under:-

¶32

“ Human Semen was dete c ted on exhibit-2 (Underwe a r). However, semen could not b e detected on rest of the exhi b its mentioned above including v aginal swabs etc.” Learned counsel contend s that when the statement of prosecutr i x u/s 164 Cr.P.C., wherein s he admitted having accompa n ied

¶33

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.05.15 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶34

CRA-S-1108-2026 -6-

¶35

appellant for one night in lieu of payment of Rs.10,000/- is appreciate d in the light o f the submissions advanced he r einabove, the inference that ca n be drawn is that the appellant did not co m pel the victim to accompany h im. She went along with him as she was pro m ised Rs.10,000/- for spending o ne night wit h him. That apart, there is no t hing to indicate that the appel l ant violated t he person of the victim only t a king into consideration the C a ste factor.

¶36

The next leg of submission r aised by learned counsel is that in the wake of the star witness of the pro s ecution story having been alre a dy examine d , who as noticed above, di d not support the stand of the prosecuti o n and even the scientific evid e nce does not corroborate the f irst version o f the victim, lenient view des e rves to be taken in favour of the appellant , who was arrested on 12.9.2 0 25, for his further incarcera t ion would no t serve any useful purpose as th e same would not only be viola t ive of his rig h ts under Article 21 of the Con s titution of India, including rig h t to speedy tr i al but would also be against the principle of “Bail is a general r ule and inca r ceration is an exception”. Pray e r for allowing the appeal has been made.

¶37

Per contra, while opposing t he request for grant of bail, lear n ed State cou n sel contends that the statemen t of the minor girl ‘S’ recorde d by the learn e d Magistrate u/s 183 of BNSS coupled with the CCTV footag e of the hotel obtained by the IO clearly pro v es the complicity of the appell a nt, who can b e seen along with the victim en t ering the said hotel. Learned S t ate counsel fu rther contends that the victim being minor (less than 18 year s of age), her consent is totally immaterial. F u rther, in view of the seriousness a nd

¶38

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.05.15 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶39

CRA-S-1108-2026 -7-

¶40

gravity o f allegations levelled, no case for grant of concession of bai l to appellant is made out. Dismissal of appe a l has been prayed for.

¶41

No meaningful arguments were advanced by the lear n ed counsel a p pearing for the complainant-re s pondents No.2 and 3. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the documen t s on record. 6. 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.

¶42

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

¶43

“ 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

¶44

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.05.15 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶45

CRA-S-1108-2026 -8-

¶46

begins after conviction, an d that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. 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.”

¶47

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

¶48

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.05.15 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶49

CRA-S-1108-2026 -9-

¶50

the case in hand, appellant who has b een in custody since 12.9.2 0 25, deserves t he concession of bail, for the l ikelihood of completion of trial in the near f uture is quite remote, thus, his ( A) further incarceration would not only be v iolative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of In d ia, including right to speedy trial but wou l d also be against the principl e of “ Bail is a general rule and incarcera t ion is an exception ” as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dataram vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131. 8. 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 condition s :-

¶51

(i) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence du r ing the trial.

¶52

(ii) The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶53

(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.

¶54

(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.

¶55

(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.

¶56

(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

¶57

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.05.15 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶58

CRA-S-1108-2026 -10-

¶59

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. (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.

¶60

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

¶61

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.

¶62

Pending application(s), if an y , shall also stand disposed of.

¶63

11.05.202 6		(AARADHNA SAWHNEY JUDGE )
gbs
	Whether Speaking/reasoned	: Yes/No
	Whether Reportable	: Yes/No

¶64

GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.05.15 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Kirat Singh v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kirat Singh v. State of Haryana and Others

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

Rajesh Vs State of Haryana

Bahid Ali @ Rajudin Vs State of Punjab

Ram Darshan Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Arik Vs State of Punjab and Others

Ritu and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Rohit @ Rohid Khan Vs State of Haryana