Akash Deep Singh @ Rakesh @ Kaka… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

Akash Deep Singh @ Rakesh @ Kaka… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed: bail granted subject to furnishing bail bond and two surety bonds and compliance with conditions (i)-(ix); State at liberty to seek cancellation of bail upon any breach.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, whose bail in FIR No.295 dated 23.12.2022 was cancelled and who was declared a 'Proclaimed Offender' on 30.01.2025, is entitled to be granted bail afresh in the present petition under Section 483 BNSS.

Court's answer

Settled law: the primary purpose of bail is to ensure the accused appears in court, not to punish or prevent; detention before trial should occur only when absolutely necessary, individuals being presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Ratio / Principle

In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and as per settled law, the petitioner is granted the concession of bail subject to his furnishing bail and two surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

Key takeaways

Bail subject to conditions: (i) no tampering with evidence; (ii) no pressurising/intimidating prosecution witnesses; (iii) no leaving the country without prior permission of the trial Court; (iv) no commission of a similar offence; (v) no direct or indirect coercion, inducement, threat or promise to dissuade disclosure of facts or tamper with evidence; (vi) no misuse of liberty; (vii) furnish address and mobile number to the Trial Court and not change them without prior intimation; (viii) appear before the trial Court on each and every date fixed unless exempted by specific order; (ix) trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other appropriate condition.ratio¶¶28
In case of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of the bail granted by this order.ratio¶¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail – fresh grant under S.483 BNSS despite earlier cancellation and proclamation. Petitioner, accused in FIR No.295 dated 23.12.2022, P.S. City Kapurthala (Ss.354/354A/354D(2)/201/406/506/509/323/341/427 IPC and S.12 POCSO Act), had been admitted to bail vide order dated 05.12.2023 in CRM-M-47084-2023; on failing to appear on one occasion without an exemption application, his bail was cancelled, bonds forfeited to the State, NBWs issued, and he was declared 'Proclaimed Offender' on 30.01.2025; he was thereafter arrested in the present case on 16.10.2025. Counsel urged that the absence was not intentional, the petitioner having been in custody since April, 2025 in FIR No.85 dated 01.04.2025 (Ss.75(2), 78(2), 351(3) BNS and Ss.8 and 12 POCSO Act), in which he was granted bail on 30.10.2025 in CRM-M-41533-2025; he stands acquitted in three of five like cases and is on bail in the remaining two. Relying on Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, 2011(4) RCR (Criminal) 898, and on Major Singh v. State of Punjab, CRM-M-36490-2022 (where NBWs were set aside on a justified absence), the Court granted bail subject to bail bond and two sureties and conditions including no tampering with evidence, no intimidation of prosecution witnesses, no departure from the country without prior permission, and appearance on every date fixed, reserving to the State liberty to seek cancellation on breach; observations confined to the proceedings, without expression of opinion on merits. Petition allowed.

CRM-M-23329-2026

1

210

CRM-M-23329-2026 Date of Decision: 01.05.2026

Akash Deep Singh @ Rakesh @ Kaka @ Kaku @ Akashdeep ...Petitioner Versus

State of Punjab ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY

Present: Mr. Prateek Pandit, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gautam Thapar, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (ORAL)

By virtue of the present petition under Section 483 BNSS, petitioner, accused in case bearing FIR No.295 dated 23.12.2022 registered against him, for commission of offences punishable u/s 354/354A/354D(2)/201/406/506/509/323/341/427 IPC and Section 12 POCSO Act, P.S. City Kapurthala, Distt. Kapurthala, has prayed for grant of bail.

Documents on record reveal that vide order dated 05.12.2023 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-47084-2023, petitioner was granted concession of bail in the present case. Pursuant thereto, he continued appearing before the Court concerned, however, on one such occasion he could not appear nor an application seeking his examination from appearance was filed. Resultantly, his bail was cancelled, bail bonds and surety bonds were cancelled and forfeited to the State. NBWs were issued to procure his presence. Since the same remained unexecuted, proclamation proceedings were initiated and finally he(P) was declared ‘Proclaimed Offender’ on 30.01.2025.

PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.05.05 15:26 I agree to specified portions of this document

CRM-M-23329-2026

2

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that during this period, petitioner was implicated in other false case FIR No.85 dated 01.04.2025 u/s 75(2), 78(2), 351(3) BNS and Section 8 and 12 of POCSO Act, P.S. City Kapurthala, Distt. Kapurthala and had been in custody since April, 2025. However, vide order dated 30.10.2025, passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-41533-2025 (Annexure P-4), he was granted the concession of bail in the said case. Further, as per learned counsel, petitioner was arrested in the present case on 16.10.2025 and has been in custody since then.

Learned counsel further contends that absence of the petitioner was not intentional but was on account of the reason mentioned hereinabove. It is further the submission of learned counsel that petitioner is involved in five other cases of like nature but he stands acquitted in three cases, whereas in remaining two, he is on bail. It is further the submission of learned counsel that a lenient view be taken in favour of the petitioner, who undertakes to regularly appear before the Court concerned as also to abide by all the conditions so imposed. Prayer for allowing the present petition has been made.

Heard. Documents on record perused.

It is settled law that the primary purpose of bail is to ensure the accused appears in court, not to punish or prevent them. Since individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty, detaining them before trial should only occur when absolutely necessary, such as to guarantee their presence at trial. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI, 2011(4) RCR (Criminal) 898 , 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

PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.05.05 15:26 I agree to specified portions of this document

CRM-M-23329-2026

3

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 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.”

This Court in CRM-M-36490-2022, titled as Major Singh vs. State of Punjab , decided on 15.09.2022 , while considering the bonafide of the petitioner and finding the reason for his absence justified, set aside the order issuing non-bailable warrants.

In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and as per settled law, petitioner is granted the concession of bail subject to his furnishing bail and two surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. The petitioner shall abide by the following conditions:-

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

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

PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.05.05 15:26 I agree to specified portions of this document

CRM-M-23329-2026

4

(iii) The petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial Court.

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

(vi) The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse his liberty.

(vii) 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 to the learned Trial Court, stating the reason for the same.

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

(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.

(AARADHNA SAWHNEY) 01.05.2026 JUDGE Parveen kumar Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable :Yes/No

PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.05.05 15:26 I agree to specified portions of this document