Allowed

Ayan Choudhary v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC13 May 2026CRM-M/11994/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail petition under BNSS for an accused in FIR under BNS sections and POCSO involving a minor who allegedly left home willingly. With charges framed but no prosecution witnesses examined and over six months custody undergone, the court granted bail on conditions without commenting on merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered released on regular bail on furnishing bail/surety bonds to trial Court/Duty Magistrate, subject to stated conditions.

Ayan Choudhary Vs State of Haryana — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

CRM-M-11994-2026

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

(209)

¶5

CRM-M-11994-2026 Date of Decision: 13.5.2026

Ayan Choudhary

......Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana .....Respondent

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH

¶11

Present: Mr. Aman Pal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rishabh Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Anmol Malik, DAG, Haryana.

¶13

¶14

KIRTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)

¶15

The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been invoked for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 725 dated 29.10.2025 under Section 137, 49, 61, 319(2) of BNS and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Gurgaon Sadar, District Gurugram.

¶16

The brief facts of the present case are that on 28.10.2025, the complainant made a complaint to the police that on 26.10.2025 her minor daughter, had left home without informing anybody. They tried to search her but could not locate her. It is further stated therein that on earlier two occasions also, her daughter had left the house without informing anybody and FIR No. 587 of 2025 and FIR No. 695 of 2025 had been registered in this regard.

¶17

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that GURPREET SINGH2026.05.14 09:13 the petitioner, aged about 19 years, has been falsely implicated in this case, I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶18

CRM-M-11994-2026 -2-

¶19

due to his acquaintance with the prosecutrix, whose age is a disputed question of fact. It is submitted that the prosecutrix, who previously as well had left her home twice, in her statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, 2023 has categorically stated that she had left the custody of her parents on her own free will. There was no pressure or undue influence exerted by the petitioner upon her. Moreover, there is also no cogent evidence on record to substantiate the sweeping allegations of enticement or sexual assault, as has been levelled against the petitioner, who has already undergone an actual custody of 06 months and 11 days. There is no other criminal case registered against him.

¶20

Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He states that the petitioner was actively involved in the commission of the offence. He 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 06 months and 11 days. The learned State counsel, on instructions from the investigating officer concerned, submits that in the present case, charges were framed on 13.4.2026 and the prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined. He submits that in view of the serious allegations against the petitioner, he is not entitled to the concession of regular bail.

¶21

Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

¶22

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 the punishment and prima facie , the involvement of the accused and the

¶23

GURPREET SINGH 2026.05.14 09:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶24

CRM-M-11994-2026 -3-

¶25

material on record.

¶26

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, relevant paras whereof reads thus:

¶27

"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 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.

¶28

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 demands 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."

¶29

Reverting to the case in hand, it is borne out from the record that charges came to be framed on 13.4.2026. However, no prosecution witness has been examined till date. 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 06 months and 11 days. It is also not disputed that he has no criminal antecedents and is not involved in any other case.

¶30

While the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations levelled

¶31

GURPREET SINGH2026.05.14 09:13 9. I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶32

CRM-M-11994-2026 -4-

¶33

against him 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, the stage of the trial, the antecedents of the accused, and the likelihood of his absconding or influencing the course of justice.

¶34

Presently, 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. Therefore, upon taking into account all the considerations stated hereinbefore, 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 and the substantial period of incarceration already undergone, would not advance the cause of justice. The guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which includes the right to a speedy trial, obliges the Court to ensure that pre-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.

¶35

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed, and to ensure that the interests of justice are adequately safeguarded, the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail upon furnishing of adequate bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate, subject to the following terms and conditions:-

¶36

(i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the

¶37

GURPREET SINGH 2026.05.14 09:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶38

trial.

¶39

CRM-M-11994-2026

¶40

-5-

¶41

(ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s).

¶42

(iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶43

(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.

¶44

(v) The petitioner shall not 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.

¶45

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.

¶46

It is reiterated that the observations made in hereinabove are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail petition, and must not be construed as a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

¶47

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

¶48

(KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE

¶49

May 13^th , 2026 Gurpreet Singh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶50

GURPREET SINGH 2026.05.14 09:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Ayan Choudhary v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ayan Choudhary v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Axxx through His Father Rxxx Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Navneet Singh @Neeta Vs State of Punjab

Vishal Srivastav Vs State of Punjab

Sunil Singh Vs State of Punjab

Sahil Vs State of Haryana

Ajay Singh Vs State of Punjab