Munasib Alias Kala Vs State of Haryana and Another — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Munasib Alias Kala Vs State of Haryana and Another — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Regular bail granted to the petitioner on furnishing bail/surety to the satisfaction of the learned Duty Magistrate/trial Court, subject to the enumerated conditions (passport deposit/no departure, no tampering with evidence, no intimidation of witnesses, attendance on all hearing dates, no similar offences, address/mobile to be furnished, further conditions permissible); the State is at liberty to seek cancellation of bail on breach of the conditions.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, charged under Sections 64, 115, 351(3) and 332(b) of the BNS for the alleged rape of the complainant's sister, is entitled to the concession of bail notwithstanding the seriousness and gravity of the allegations, given that the victim and other principal witnesses had already been examined and did not support the prosecution version.

Court's answer

Grant or refusal of bail is a matter of judicial discretion; there is no straitjacket formula, and in exercising powers under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (pari materia to Section 483 BNSS) the Court weighs parameters including nature of the charge, evidence, seriousness and gravity of the offence, prospective punishment and past antecedents, examining each case on its peculiar facts.

Ratio / Principle

Without adverting to the merits of the case, lest the trial be prejudiced, the Court held that the petitioner is entitled to concession of bail: his further detention, in view of the fact that the star-witness (the victim) had already been examined and did not support the prosecution case, would violate his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, including the right to speedy trial.

Key takeaways

Bail is granted subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Duty Magistrate/trial Court, with conditions: no leaving the country without trial Court permission and deposition of passport; no tampering with evidence; no pressurising/intimidating prosecution witnesses; appearance before the trial Court on every fixed date unless specifically exempted; commission of no similar offence; no coercion, inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts; no misuse of liberty; furnishing of address and mobile number with change only on prior intimation; and the trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other appropriate condition. On breach of the conditions, the State may seek cancellation of the bail.ratio¶42
The observations made in the order are limited to the present (bail) proceedings and are not to be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case; the trial will proceed independently of them.obiter¶55

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRM-M-22810-2026 | Regular bail granted | Decided 25.05.2026 | Coram: Aaradhna Sawhney, J. (single Judge) | Petitioner Munasib @ Kala, booked under FIR No. 108 dated 06.08.2025, P.S. Bahin, District Palwal, u/Ss 115, 64, 351(3), 332(B) BNS for allegedly entering the victim's matrimonial home in Village Pawsar on the night of 05/06.08.2025 and raping her after blackmailing her with an objectionable video; arrested 08.08.2025; challan filed u/S. 193(3) BNSS u/Ss 64, 115, 351(3), 332(b) BNS after Section 70(1) BNS was deleted and no involvement of Rohit @ Rohid and Mustakeem was found. Bail application dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal (order dated 28.07.2026, as printed). Counsel urged prior emotional involvement between petitioner and victim, absence of recovered video, and that the victim (PW-1) and complainant brother (PW-2) resiled, the victim being declared hostile with nothing material elicited in cross-examination. Relying on Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 49 and Dataram Singh v. State of U.P., 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, and without adverting to merits, the Court held further detention violative of Article 21 (including right to speedy trial) since the star-witness had been examined and not supported the prosecution; granted bail subject to conditions (passport deposit, no tampering, no witness intimidation, attendance on all dates, no similar offence, address/mobile intimation), with liberty to the State to seek cancellation on breach; observations expressly confined to bail proceedings, trial to proceed independently.

PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.05.30 16:06 I agree to specified portions of this document

CRM-M-22810-2026

2

Bishambara, Police Station Shergarh, District Mathura, Uttar Pradesh, appeared at police station and submitted a complaint against (1) Munasib alias Kala (petitioner) son of Shri Sapi, (ii) Rohit son of Iqbal, (iii) Mustakeem son of Bharti, and one unknown person, all residents of Village Bishambara, Tehsil Chhata, District Mathura, Uttar Pradesh. The complainant Robin stated in his complaint that I am a peace-loving and respectable person. I have a sister named RXXXXX, who is married in Village Pawsar, Tehsil Hathin, District Palwal. The above-mentioned accused persons namely Munasib alias Kala (petitioner) son of Sapi, Rohit son of Iqbal, Mustakeem son of Bharti, and one unknown person, all residents of Village Bishambara, Tehsil Chhata, District Mathura, Uttar Pradesh, have been harassing and troubling my sister for quite some time. The accused persons have also made a video of my sister, on the basis of which they blackmail her and establish physical relations with her. Because of the video, my sister remained silent till now, but the confidence and audacity of the accused persons have increased to such an extent that on the evening of 05.08.2025, the accused persons came together after consultation to my sister's matrimonial home in Village Pawsar, District Palwal. When my sister protested, they threatened to show the video to her husband. Thereafter, at about 2:00 AM in the early morning of 06.08.2025, the accused persons forcibly lifted my sister from the cot after gagging her mouth and took her aside where they started raping her. When she resisted, the accused persons assaulted her and again threatened to show the video to her husband. When the accused persons continuously ravished my sister, she took a stand against the atrocities and raised an alarm, due to which family members and neighboring people arrived at the spot. The accused persons then fled from the spot, however, two persons namely Munasib alias Kala (petitioner) and Rohit were caught and handed over to the police administration after calling them to the spot. The police took the accused persons from the house to the police station, while two other

PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.05.30 16:06 I agree to specified portions of this document

CRM-M-22810-2026

3

persons managed to escape. Regarding this matter, my sister informed me over the phone, upon which I came to Village Pawsar, District Palwal where my sister narrated the entire incident to me. The accused persons have threatened to kill my sister and her family members. I apprehend that the above-mentioned accused persons may commit some untoward incident against my sister and her family, because the family members of the accused are persons of criminal nature and many criminal cases are already registered against them in Uttar Pradesh. Due to this, the life of my sister has become miserable and ruined. The motorcycle of the accused persons bearing registration No. UP-85-CP-1172 is also present at my sister's house. On the basis of which present FIR No. 108 dated 06.08.2025, under sections 115, 64, 351(3), 332(B) of BNS has been lodged at P.S. Bahin, District Palwal which is attached with the petition as Annexure P-1.”

During the course of investigation, the victim was medico legally examined at Civil Hospital Palwal. Sealed parcels handed over by the doctor were taken into possession through seizure memo. She was produced before the learned Ilaqa Magistrate for getting her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. (now 183 BNSS). Investigation Officer visited the place of occurrence and prepared the rough site plan. Statements of witnesses at various stages of investigation were also recorded.

The complainant party produced the motorcycle bearing Registration No. UP-85-CP-1172 and a mobile phone handset (Make: VIVO 29) belonging to the accused, both of which were taken into possession. Petitioner was arrested on 08.08.2025. He identified the motorcycle and the mobile phone handset as his own, was also got medico-legally examined. The sealed parcels handed over by the doctor were taken into possession by the Investigating Officer.

PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.05.30 16:06 I agree to specified portions of this document

CRM-M-22810-2026

4

During the course of Interrogation, present petitioner namely Munasib @ Kala confessed to his involvement in the commission of offence and also disclosed the names of his other three accomplices, who, according to him, had played an active role in the entire incident. The persons named by petitioner were Azad, son of Yusuf and Jilsad son of Samsudddin, residents of village Kot, Police Station Bahin, District Palwal. Accordingly, CD No. 03 dated 08.08.2025 were registered. However, no involvement of Rohit @ Rohid son of Iqbal and Mustakeem son of Bharti, residents of Bisambara, Police Station Shergarh, District Mathura, Uttar Pradesh was found. Section 70(1) BNS was not made and was accordingly deleted.

On culmination of investigation, challan was filed u/s 193 (3) BNSS under Sections 64, 115, 351(3), 332(b) of BNS against the present petitioner.

Aggrieved by the dismissal of his application, seeking grant of bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal, vide order dated 28.07.2026, the present petition has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner aged about 22 years with clean past antecedents, has been falsely implicated in the present case. The sequence of events did not unfold in the manner as portrayed by the victim. In fact, prior to her wedding, victim and petitioner were well known to each other and were emotionally involved. Somehow, she got married to another person, but continued to be in-touch with the petitioner. Even in her statement u/s 164 of Cr.P.C. (now Section 183 of BNSS), she categorically stated that she was earlier involved with the petitioner. Further her allegation that the petitioner continued to stalk and threaten her deserves not to be taken note of, for its sounds strange to common sense that petitioner alongwith the other accused visited the

PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.05.30 16:06 I agree to specified portions of this document

CRM-M-22810-2026

5

matrimonial home of the victim, situated in a thickly populated area at odd hours and violated her person. Further, her plea that she raised an alarm and cried for help, but none came to her rescue also does not gel with common sense. Her plea that petitioner had been threatening and forcing her to maintain physical proximity with him on the ground that he has in his possession certain objectionable videos of her, which he would circulate also appears to be an afterthought for during the course of interrogation, no such video was ever recovered.

Continuing further, learned counsel submits that the falsity of the case set up against petitioner is further evident from the testimony of the victim herself, who while appearing in the witness box as PW-1, resiled from her earlier statement given before the police authorities and deposed that the petitioner and co-accused Rohit did not commit any wrong with her, nor did they click any obscene videos or photographs of her.

Although she was declared ‘hostile’ at the request of the learned Public Prosecutor and was permitted to be cross-examined on the ground that she is suppressing truth but nothing material supporting the case of prosecution could be elicited from her cross-examination. On similar lines is the testimony of her brother i.e. complainant, who appeared as PW-2.

In light of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel contends that the star witnesses of the prosecution case having been already examined and not supporting the prosecution version, further incarceration of petitioner would not serve any useful purpose as the same would be violative of the fundamental rights. Prayer for allowing the petition has been made.

No meaningful arguments were advanced by the learned State

PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.05.30 16:06 I agree to specified portions of this document

CRM-M-22810-2026

6

Counsel except to submit that, considering the seriousness and gravity of the allegations, no case for grant of bail is made out. Accordingly, dismissal of the present petition has been prayed for.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance, perused the record available on record. 6. It is settled that grant or refusal of bail is the discretion of the Court. Factors to be kept in mind while granting the concession of bail have been discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in several cases. The essence being that while exercising powers under Section 439 Cr.P.C. ( Pari materia to Section 483 of BNSS), the Court has to take into consideration various para meters including the nature of the charge, evidence, seriousness and gravity of offence, punishments to be awarded to a person, if he is convicted, his past antecedents etc. Thus, there can be no straight jacket formula for exercising the discretion and each case has to be examined on its peculiar facts.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 49 ; held as under:-

"14) 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 can be 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. 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 un-convicted persons should be

PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.05.30 16:06 I agree to specified portions of this document

CRM-M-22810-2026

7

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. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of a refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any Court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an un-convicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson."

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131 , elaborated upon the factors to be kept in mind while deciding bail and reiterated that a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. Hon'ble Apex Court further held that while considering prayer for grant of bail, it is important to ascertain whether the accused was participating in the investigations to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and was not absconding or not appearing when required by the investigating officer. Hon'ble Apex Court further held that if an accused is not hiding from the investigating officer or is hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear of being victimized, it would be a factor that a judge would need to consider in an appropriate case.

PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.05.30 16:06 I agree to specified portions of this document

CRM-M-22810-2026

8

In view of the settled proposition of law, submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, but without adverting to the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice the trial, this Court is of the opinion that petitioner is entitled to concession of bail, his further detention in the light of the fact that the star-witness of the prosecution story i.e. the victim has already been examined (who has not supported the case of the prosecution), would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, including right to speedy trial.

Resultantly, petitioner is granted the concession of bail subject to his furnishing bail/surety to the satisfaction of the learned Duty Magistrate/trial Court concerned. The petitioner shall abide by the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial Court and shall deposit the passport in the trial Court.

(ii) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (iii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

(iv) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific order of Court.

(v) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which, she is an accused, or for commission of which she is suspected of.

(vi) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coerce, induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner.

(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse his/her liberty. (viii) The petitioner shall furnish his address and mobile number to the Trial Court forthwith and shall not change the same till the conclusion of the trial and in case for any reason, the petitioner seeks to change any of the aforesaid, the same shall be done only with prior intimation

PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.05.30 16:06 I agree to specified portions of this document

CRM-M-22810-2026

9

to the learned Trial Court, stating the reason for the same.

(ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other condition, as deemed appropriate while releasing the petitioner.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and it is made clear that in case there is any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as granted to the petitioner by this order.

In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of the aforesaid observations.

25.05.2026

Kamal Gandhi

(AARADHNA SAWHNEY) JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.05.30 16:06 I agree to specified portions of this document

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Dismissal of the petitioner's application seeking grant of bail¶16
Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal · 28.07.2026
Prior proceeding
On complaint of Robin (brother of the victim) alleging that accused persons, blackmailing the victim with an objectionable video, came to her matrimonial home in Village Pawsar, District Palwal on the evening of 05.08.2025 and raped her in the early hours of 06.08.2025, and that the petitioner (Munasib alias Kala) and Rohit were caught at the spot, FIR No. 108 dated 06.08.2025 was registered at P.S. Bahin, District Palwal under Sections 115, 64, 351(3), 332(B) BNS (Annexure P-1 to the petition).¶8
Prior proceeding
During investigation, the victim was medico-legally examined at Civil Hospital Palwal; sealed parcels handed over by the doctor were seized; she was produced before the Ilaqa Magistrate for recording of her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. (now 183 BNSS); the Investigating Officer prepared a rough site plan and recorded witness statements.¶9
Prior proceeding
Motorcycle bearing Registration No. UP-85-CP-1172 and a VIVO 29 mobile handset belonging to the accused were produced and taken into possession; the petitioner was arrested, identified the motorcycle and handset as his own, and was medico-legally examined.¶10
Prior proceeding
During interrogation the petitioner confessed and disclosed three accomplices, including Azad son of Yusuf and Jilsad son of Samsudddin of village Kot, P.S. Bahin, District Palwal; CD No. 03 dated 08.08.2025 was registered; no involvement of co-named persons Rohit @ Rohid son of Iqbal and Mustakeem son of Bharti was found and Section 70(1) BNS was deleted.¶14
Prior proceeding
On culmination of investigation, challan was filed u/s 193(3) BNSS under Sections 64, 115, 351(3), 332(b) BNS against the present petitioner.¶15
Prior proceeding
At trial, the victim appeared as PW-1 and resiled from her earlier statement to the police, deposing that the petitioner and co-accused Rohit committed no wrong against her and clicked no obscene videos or photographs; her brother, the complainant, testified similarly as PW-2.¶22
Prior proceeding
The victim was declared hostile at the request of the learned Public Prosecutor and permitted cross-examination, but nothing material supporting the prosecution case was elicited.¶23