Harsh Vs State of Haryana and Another — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

Harsh Vs State of Haryana and Another — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Regular bail granted to the petitioner on furnishing adequate bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate, subject to six conditions (non-tampering with evidence, non-intimidation of prosecution witnesses, appearance before the trial Court on fixed dates, non-commission of similar offences, no inducement/threat/promise to persons acquainted with the facts, and no association with the victim); prosecution free to apply for cancellation of bail on breach; pending miscellaneous applications disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner Harsh is entitled to regular bail in FIR No.292 dated 23.12.2025 under Sections 137, 96, 140(3), 75(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 8 of POCSO, Police Station Bhiwani Civil Lines, District Bhiwani. +1 more

Court's answer

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, prima facie involvement of the accused and the material on record.

Ratio / Principle

With charges framed on 24.03.2026 and only two of the 22 cited prosecution witnesses examined till date, the pace of the proceedings indicates that the conclusion of trial is not imminent; the petitioner had already remained in actual custody for 05 months and 02 days.

Key takeaways

No material was placed on record to suggest that the petitioner poses a flight risk or that his release would impede the fair conduct of the trial, particularly when the material witnesses stand examined.ratio¶33
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, including the right to a speedy trial, obliges the Court to ensure that pre-trial incarceration does not assume a punitive character.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — Regular bail under S.483 BNSS — FIR No.292 dated 23.12.2025, P.S. Bhiwani Civil Lines, under Ss.137, 96, 140(3), 75(2) BNS 2023 and S.8 POCSO — Allegation of taking away/luring a 14-year-old prosecutrix — Charges framed 24.03.2026; only two of 22 prosecution witnesses examined; conclusion of trial not imminent — Petitioner in actual custody 05 months 02 days — No material showing flight risk or likelihood of impeding trial — Pendency of another case (FIR No.296/2024) not a sole ground to refuse bail (Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi, 2012 (2) SCC 382, relied on) — Object of bail neither punitive nor preventative (Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, relied on) — 'Bail is the rule and jail is the exception' (Dataram Singh, (2018) 3 SCC 22, relied on) — Petition allowed; bail granted on bail/surety bonds with conditions; observations confined to bail adjudication, no expression on merits.

CRM-M-18783-2026 (O&M) -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

212 CRM-M-18783-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 26.05.2026

HARSH

......Petitioner

Versu s

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH

Present: Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Advocat e and Mr. Shivam Jindal, Advocat e for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Brijesh Sharma, AAG, H aryana.

KIRTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)

Prayer in the present peti t ion filed under Section 483 of Bharatiy a Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (f o r short- ‘BNSS’), is for gran t of regular b a il to the petitioner, in case FI R No.292 dated 23.12.2025, u n der Sections 1 37, 96, 140(3), 75(2) of BNS, 2 023 and Section 8 of the POC S O, registere d at Police Station Bhiwani Civil Lines, District Bhiwani, Harya n a.

The contents of the FIR are reproduced below:-

“It is submitted that I, xxxx, Advocate, wife of Sombir, reside n t of House No. 1097, Sector 13, Bhiwan i . I had given a complaint a few days earlier against one boy Harsh son of Ne eraj, presently resident of Shastri M arg, Vidyanagar. The same boy today m orning at about 4 o'clock took awa y my daughter xxxx, aged 14 years, fro m my father's house No. 2444, Secto r 13, Bhiwani, by luring/alluring her awa y from home, and he has taken my girl x x x in Maruti Brezza No. DL 11 CF 738 3 , silver colour. I apprehend danger t o the honour and life of my daughter. Ki n dly strictest possible action be taken u n der the appropriate sections of IPC (3 6 3, 366-A, POCSO Act). The number o f that boy Harsh son of Neeraj is 086 8 4972301, and the number of his unc l e is 9050xxx. His parents support him a nd give him money and vehicle for ai m less roaming. I apprehend danger to t h e honour and life of my daughter xx x x. I apprehend danger to the honour a n d life of my daughter xxx. Kindly actio n be taken as early as possible and the st r ictest possible action be taken."

SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.05.26 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-18783-2026 (O&M) -2-

Learned counsel for the pe t itioner inter alia submits that the petitione r , now aged 19 years, has been f a lsely implicated in the present c ase on the co m plaint made by the mother of the prosecutrix. It is submitted t hat the pros e cutrix, age of whom is a dis p uted question of fact, was w ellacquainted with the petitioner. Moreov e r, there is no cogent evidence on record to substantiate the allegations lev e lled against the petitioner. In f act, the pros e cutrix in her statement record e d under Section 183 BNSS, h ad categoric a lly stated that the petitioner h ad not committed any wrong a cts with her. It is submitted that the petition e r has already undergone an ac t ual custody o f 05 months, 02 days.

Per contra, learned State c o unsel has vehemently opposed the submissi o ns made by the learned couns e l for the petitioner. Learned S t ate counsel, u pon instructions from the Inv e stigating Officer concerned, st a tes that the p etitioner was actively involved in the commission of the offe n ce. He has f i led custody certificate in Cou r t today and the same is taken on record. A s per custody certificate, the p etitioner has undergone an ac t ual custody o f 05 months, 02 days. Investig a tion is complete. He submits t hat charges w ere framed on 24.03.2026, an d out of a total of 22 prosecu t ion witnesses, two have been examined. He a lso submits that there is one o t her case bear i ng FIR No.296/2024, registere d against the petitioner, in whic h he is on bail .

Heard the rival submission s made by learned counsel for the

parties.

SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.05.26 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-18783-2026 (O&M) -3-

Before proceeding, a gain fu l reference can be made to the observati o ns passed by the Hon'ble Sup r eme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40 , relevant paras w h ereof reads thus:

"21. In bail applications, ge n erally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object o f bail is to secure the appearance o f the accused person at his trial by r e asonable amount of bail. The obje c t of bail is neither punitive nor pre v entative. Deprivation of liberty mu s t be considered a punishment, unl e ss it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his tr ial when called upon. The courts o we more than verbal respect to th e principle that punishment begins af ter conviction, and that every man i s deemed to be innocent until duly t r ied and duly found guilty.

22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detentio n in custody pending completion of t rial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity d e mands that some unconvicted per s ons should be held in custody pen d ing trial to secure their attendanc e at the trial but in such cases, " n ecessity" is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite cont r ary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution t hat any person should be punishe d in respect of any matter, upon whi c h, he has not been convicted or th a t in any circumstances, he should b e deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with t h e witnesses if left at liberty, save i n the most extraordinary circumstanc e s."

Trite to say that at the stag e of considering a petition see k ing bail, the Court, though not required t o make a roving inquiry into the evidence, must take into consideration t h e nature of the offence, severit y of the punishment and prima facie , the in v olvement of the accused and the material o n record.

Reverting to the case in ha n d, it is borne out from the re c ord that the c h arges were framed on 24.03.2 0 26. Out of the 22 cited prosecu t ion witnesses, only two have been exa m ined till date. The pace of the proceedi n gs, thus, indicates that the conclusion of trial is not imminent. T he petitione r has already remained in actual custody for a period of 05 mo n ths

SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.05.26 18:40I attest to the accuracy andand 02 d a ys. integrity of this document

CRM-M-18783-2026 (O&M) -4-

As regards the submissio n of learned State counsel t hat petitione r is facing trial in one more cri m inal case, it has been held by the Hon’ble S upreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (2) SCC 382 that t h e facts and circumstances of the present c a se are to be seen while decid i ng a bail application and the b ail applicati o n of the petitioner cannot be re j ected solely on the ground that the petitione r is involved in other case(s). The relevant portion of the s aid judgment is reproduced herein-below:-

“As observed by the High C o urt, merely on the basis of crim i nal antecedents, the claim of the s econd respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role o f the accused in the case in whi c h he has been charged and o t her circumstances such as pos s ibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc.”

While the truthfulness or ot h erwise of the allegations leve l led against t h e petitioner, and the culpabi l ity, if any, would be tested a nd determin e d on the touchstone of evide n ce during the course of trial, the paramete r s governing the grant of bail n e cessitate a balanced considera t ion of the n a ture of accusation, the stage o f the trial, the antecedents of the accused, a nd the likelihood of his absconding or influencing the cours e of justice.

Presently, no material has b e en placed on record to suggest t hat the petiti o ner pose a flight risk or that his release would impede the fair conduct of the trial, particularly wh e n the material witnesses st a nd examine d . Therefore, upon taking into a c count all the considerations st a ted

SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.05.26 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-18783-2026 (O&M) -5-

herein-be f ore, and without expressing a n opinion on the merits of the c ase lest it ma y prejudice the trial, this Court i s of the opinion that the contin u ed detention of the petitioner, in the backd r op of the pace of the proceedings and the s ubstantial period of incarcerat i on already undergone, would not advance t he cause of justice. The guaran t ee of personal liberty under Art i cle 21 of the Constitution of India, which i n cludes the right to a speedy t r ial, obliges t h e Court to ensure that pre-tri a l incarceration does not assu m e a punitive c haracter. The prolonged incarc e ration, without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near futur e , would also run contrary to the settled legal principle that ‘bail is the r ule and jail is the exception’ , as reaffirme d by the Hon’ble Supreme Co u rt in Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2018) 3 SCC 22.

Without commenting anythi n g on the merits of the case, le s t it may prej u dice the trial, the present petit i on is allowed and the petition e r is ordered t o be released on regular bail o n furnishing adequate bail/su r ety bonds t o the satisfaction of the co n cerned learned trial Court/ D uty Magistra t e. The petitioner shall also abid e by the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioner will not t amper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The petitioner will not p ressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s). (iii) The petitioner will app e ar before the trial Court on the d ate fixed, unless personal p resence is exempted. (iv) The petitioner shall n o t commit an offence similar to the offence of which he i s accused of, or for commissio n of which he is suspected. (v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquai n ted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him f r om disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office r or

SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.05.26 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-18783-2026 (O&M) -6-

tamper with the eviden c e. (vi) The petitioner will not a ssociate himself with the victim in any manner.

In case of breach of an y of the above conditions, the prosecuti o n shall be at liberty to move a n application for cancellation of b ail before th i s Court.

However, nothing stated a b ove shall be construed as a f i nal expressio n of opinion on the merits of t he case and the trial Court w o uld proceed i n dependently of the observatio n s made in the present case w h ich are only f or the purpose of adjudicating t h e present bail petition.

Pending miscellaneous ap p lication(s), if any, also stands

disposed o f.

(KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE May 26, 2026 SwarnjitS Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whethe reportable : Yes/No

SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.05.26 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document