Jagjit Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC20 May 2026CRM-M/19662/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRM-M-19662-2026; Jagjit Singh v. State of Punjab; Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh; decided 20.05.2026; Kirti Singh, J.; regular bail under S.483 BNSS / S.439 CrPC; FIR No.116 dated 14.05.2025, PS City Tarn Taran; S.65 BNS / S.376 IPC; S.6 POCSO; S.75 BNS / S.354-A IPC; S.8 POCSO; minor prosecutrix DOB 12.10.2014; video allegedly fabricated by petitioner's wife; wife declared hostile before trial court; tutored prosecution statements claimed; no medical evidence claimed; custody 01 year 04 days; outcome illegible in digitised copy.

What the court decided

AI extract

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

¶1

��

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

(212)

¶4

JAGJIT SINGH

¶5

CRM-M-19662-2026 Date of Decision: 20.05.2026

......Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB

.....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH

¶11

Present: Mr. Vikas Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Ms. Aakanksha Gupta, AAG, Punjab.

¶13

¶14

KIRTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)

¶15

The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 of BNSS (439 of Cr.P.C.) has been invoked for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 116 dated 14.05.2025 under Section 65 of BNS (Section 376 of IPC) and Section 6 of POCSO Act and added lateron Section 75 of BNS (Section 354-A of IPC) and Section 8 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station City Tarn Taran, District Tarn Taran (Annexure P-1).

¶16

The translated version of the FIR is reproduced below:-

¶17

“"Statement of Shri Rajesh Kumar (District Child Protection Officer, Tarn Taran), S/o Prem Kumar, resident of MCBZ600365, Main Road, Near Gali No. 13, Bachan Colony, Bathinda, aged about 39 years, Mobile No. 73074-3xxxx, stated that I am resident of the above-mentioned address and I am posted as District Child Protection Officer, Tarn Taran. Today, I was present in my office, Room No. 311, Third Floor, DC Office, Tarn Taran, when Sukhdev Singh S/o Swaran Singh, resident of Gali Bajigaran Wali, Mohalla Nanaksar, Bank Side, Tarn Taran, appeared before me and submitted a written application and also produced a video. The said video was prepared by Rajinder Kaur W/o Jagjit Singh S/o Kundan Singh, which was presented before me by Sukhdev Singh S/o Swaran Singh. After watching the said video, it came to know that Jagjit Singh S/o Kundan Singh, resident of Kajikot, had been committing rape with the minor girl since approximately the period from March to April. The date of birth of the girl is 12.10.2014, who is studying in 6th class at Shri Guru Arjan Dev Government Girls Senior Secondary Smart School, Tarn Taran. I brought the girl from the school and, keeping in view the safety of the girl, the girl was kept at Sakhi One Stop Centre, Government Hospital. The medical examination of the girl was got

¶18

RITIKA 2026.05.21 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶19

��

¶20

� ��

¶21

conducted and necessary action be taken. The application submitted by Sukhdev Singh is also being produced before you. Statement has been recorded, read and is correct.”

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, aged about 54 years, has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of the statement the complainant regarding sexual assault upon a minor prosecutrix, who admittedly was not known to him. It is submitted that the FIR was infact got lodged by the complainant at the behest of the wife of the petitioner, who purportedly produced a video of the alleged incident. However, the wife of the petitioner has now categorically admitted that the alleged video was fabricated and presented so as to settle scores with the petitioner, with whom she had matrimonial and property disputes. Accordingly, she was declared hostile at the time of recording of her testimony before the learned trial Court. It is submitted that the adverse statements made by the prosecutrix were also tutored. There is no cogent evidence on record, medical or otherwise, to substantiate the allegations leveled against the petitioner, who has already undergone an actual custody of 01 year and 04 days.

¶23

�� �� !��"� ��#��$��01 year and 04 days��%��$�� &��'�� '�� #��(��)�� $��$��*��"�� $��$��#�� $��

¶24

RITIKA 2026.05.21 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶25

��

¶26

� ��

¶27

Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the

¶28

parties.

¶29

B��$��#��$�� +��,�� ��

¶30

�� �� -

¶31

�� !�� "�� "�� !�� #�� $��

¶32

.� ��$��#�� $��&��'��/��(��'�� )��%��$�#��# ��%�� 01 year and 04 days��

¶33

&� 0�� $�� $��# ��# ��# � �� $��#�� $��$��$�� #��$��#��# ��!��$��$��1��

¶34

RITIKA 2026.05.21 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶35

��

¶36

� ��

¶37

�� *��#��$$�� $��!�� #�� )�� #�� $��)��%��#��!��$�� #�� )��$�� 1��#�� #��!�� $�� $��#� ��1��%��$�� "��2��#� ��$�� #��$�� %��$��#� �� $��#� �� $��3��1�� )��4#��+��4�� ��

¶38

�� !��"��#��

¶39

�� "��$��#�� #�� 1��5��$��#�� $��$��5��6�� 67��$��#��1�� $��-�

¶40

8�9�%�� $��

¶41

��

¶42