Allowed¶37

Anuj v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC6 May 2026CRM-M/24331/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail CRM-M Punjab & Haryana; S.483 BNSS petition; FIR No.128 dt.13.03.2025 PS Mujessar Faridabad; S.365 IPC / S.140(3) BNS; S.6 POCSO Act 2012; prosecutrix aged ~16 left home 15.02.2025; charges framed 26.09.2025; only 1 of 18 prosecution witnesses examined; trial delay; custody 01 year 29 days; no flight risk; Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40; Dataram Singh (2018) 3 SCC 22; bail is the rule jail the exception; Article 21 speedy trial; punitive pre-trial detention; bail conditions; cancellation of bail on breach.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail granted to petitioner Anuj on furnishing adequate bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate, subject to conditions (i)-(v); pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of. ¶37

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether regular bail should be granted to the petitioner (Anuj), accused in FIR No.128 dated 13.03.2025 (PS Mujessar, Faridabad) under Section 365 IPC / Section 140(3) BNS and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, on a petition filed under Section 483 BNSS.

¶15

Court's answer

At the stage of considering a bail petition, the Court, though not required to make a roving inquiry into the evidence, must consider the nature of the offence, severity of punishment, prima facie involvement of the accused and the material on record.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

Though charges were framed on 26.09.2025, only one of 18 prosecution witnesses has been examined; the pace of proceedings indicates that conclusion of trial is not imminent.

¶30

Key takeaways

No material was placed on record to suggest the petitioner poses a flight risk or that his release would impede the fair conduct of the trial, particularly since the material witness (prosecutrix) stands examined.ratio¶34
Continued detention of the petitioner, in the backdrop of the pace of proceedings and the substantial period of incarceration already undergone (01 year and 29 days), would not advance the cause of justice.ratio¶34
The guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 includes the right to a speedy trial and obliges the Court to ensure pre-trial incarceration does not assume a punitive character.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh (Kirti Singh, J., oral), 06.05.2026, CRM-M-24331-2026 (O&M) — Anuj v. State of Haryana and Anr.: Regular bail allowed under Section 483 BNSS in FIR No.128 dated 13.03.2025, PS Mujessar, District Faridabad, Haryana, under Section 365 IPC (Section 140(3) BNS) and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. Charges framed 26.09.2025; investigation complete; only the prosecutrix examined out of 18 prosecution witnesses, so trial conclusion not imminent; petitioner had undergone actual custody of 01 year and 29 days with, per the record, no material showing flight risk or risk of impediment to the trial. Relying on Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, and on the principle that 'bail is the rule and jail is the exception' as reaffirmed in Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2018) 3 SCC 22, and invoking the Article 21 guarantee of personal liberty including the right to a speedy trial, the Court held continued detention would not advance the cause of justice and released the petitioner on bail subject to conditions (no tampering with evidence, no pressurising/intimidating prosecution witnesses, appearance on fixed dates, no similar offence, no inducement/threat/promise), breach permitting a cancellation application before this Court. Observations expressly without prejudice; trial Court to proceed independently.

¶1

CRM-M-24331-2026 (O&M) -1-

¶2

pIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

(213)

¶4

CRM-M-24331-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 06.05.2026

ANUJ

......Petiti o ner

Versu s

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.

¶9

.....Respond e nts

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH

¶11

Present: Mr. Harsh Rana, Advocate a n d Mr. Anil Kumar Rana, Advo c ate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Brijesh Sharma, AAG, H aryana.

¶13

¶14

KIRTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)

¶15

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.128 dated 13.03.2025, u n der Section 3 65 IPC (Section 140(3) of B N S) and Section 6 of the PO C SO Act,2012 , registered at Police Station Mu j essar, District Faridabad, Haryana. 2. The contents of the FIR are reproduced below:-

¶16

“1, Surendra Th a kur, son of Hasai Thakur, reside n t of village Sitaruba, District Bh oj pur (Bihar), and current tenan t of "Panditji" in Subhash Nagar, O ld Press Colony, Faridabad, stat e as follows:l am married and ha v e four children (three daughters and one son). My eldest daughter, xx xx, aged approximately 16 years, left home on 15/02/2025 without informing anyone. She is a stude n t of Class 10 at a Government Sch o ol. At the time of her disappeara n ce, she was wearing her school u n iform. Physical Description of x x xx: Complexion: Dark Face: Ova l /Long Build: Slim Height: 4'8" S i nce her disappearance, I received one phone call from her stating t hat she would return home soon, b ut she has not returned yet. We h ave searched for her extensively on our own, but no clue to her whereabouts has been foun d . 1 earnestly request the police department to help search for m y daughter. I shall be deeply gra t eful for your assistance.SD/- Suren d ra Thakur (Applicant)”

¶17

SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.05.06 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CRM-M-24331-2026 (O&M) -2-

¶19

Learned counsel for the pe t itioner inter alia submits that the petitione r has been falsely implicated in t h e present case, which was initi a lly registere d as a missing complainant file d by the father of the prosecutri x . It is submit t ed that the petitioner has been n ominated as an accused due to his acquaint a nce with the prosecutrix, age o f whom is a disputed questio n of fact. Mor e over, the prosecutrix had volu n tarily left her home, and there w as no threat, inducement or coercion by the p etitioner in that regard. It is fur t her submitte d that there is no evidence o n record, medical or otherwise , to substanti a te the allegations levelled agai n st the petitioner. A bare perusa l of the testi m ony of the prosecutrix recor d ed before the learned trial C o urt further r e veals that no overt allegatio n s have been levelled against the petitione r . Rather, it is the categoric ad m ission of the prosecutrix that the petitione r was not aware of the age of th e prosecutrix, and that he had been implicate d due to the pressure exerted b y her family. Reliance in this re g ard is placed on Annexure P-6. Learned co u nsel submits that the now 22 y ear old petiti o ner has already undergone an actual custody of 01 year and 29 days and h as clean antecedents.

¶20

Per contra, learned State c o unsel has vehemently opposed the submissi o ns made by the learned cou n sel for the petitioner. He, u p on instructio n s from the Investigating O f ficer concerned, states that the petitione r was actively involved in the c o mmission of the offence. Lear n ed State co u nsel has filed custody certifica t e in Court today and the sam e is taken on r ecord. As per custody certific a te, the petitioner has undergon e an actual cu s tody of 01 year and 29 days. I nvestigation is complete. He a lso SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.05.06 18:10 I attest to the accuracy andsubmits t h at the charges have been fram e d on 26.09.2025 and out of a t o tal integrity of this document

¶21

CRM-M-24331-2026 (O&M) -3-

¶22

of 18 pro s ecution witnesses, only the pro s ecutrix has been examined.

¶23

Heard the rival submission s made by learned counsel for the

¶24

parties. 6. Before proceeding, a gain fu l reference can be made to the

¶25

observati o ns passed by the Hon'ble Sup r eme Court in Sanjay Chandra v.

¶26

CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40 , relevant paras w h ereof reads thus:

¶27

"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.

¶28

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."

¶29

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.

¶30

Reverting to the case in ha n d, it is borne out from the re c ord that char g es came to be framed on 26.09 . 2025. Yet, only one out of 18 c i ted prosecuti o n witnesses has been examine d . The pace of the proceedings, t h us, SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.05.06 18:10I attest to the accuracy andindicates that the conclusion of trial is not imminent. The petitioner has integrity of this document

¶31

CRM-M-24331-2026 (O&M) -4-

¶32

already r e mained in actual custody for a p eriod of 01 year and 29 days.

¶33

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.

¶34

Presently, no material has b e en placed on record to suggest t hat the petiti o ner poses a flight risk or that his release would impede the fair conduct of the trial, particularly wh e n the material witness viz. the prosecutr i x stands examined. Therefore , upon taking into account all the consider a tions stated herein-before, and without expressing an opinion on the merit s of the case lest it may prej u dice the trial, this Court is of the opinion t h at the continued detention of t h e petitioner, in the backdrop of the pace of t h e proceedings and the substan t ial period of incarceration alre a dy undergon e , would not advance the ca u se of justice. The guarantee of personal l iberty under Article 21 of the C o nstitution of India, which incl u des the right to a speedy trial, obliges t h e Court to ensure that pre- t rial incarcera t ion does not assume a p u nitive character. The prolon g ed incarcera t ion, without the prospect of th e trial being concluded in the n ear future, w o uld also run contrary to the se t tled legal principle that ‘bail is the rule and j ail is the exception’, as reaffir m ed by the Hon’ble Supreme C o urt in Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2018) 3 SCC

¶35

SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.05.06 18:10 22. I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶36

CRM-M-24331-2026 (O&M) -5-

¶37

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 petitioner is ordered t o be released on regular bail on his 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:-

¶38

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

¶39

(ii) The petitioner will not p ressurize/intimidate the prosecu t ion witness(s).

¶40

(iii) The petitioner will app e ar before the trial Court on the d a te fixed, unless personal p resence is exempted.

¶41

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

¶42

(v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or p r omise to any person acquainted with the facts of the ca s e so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office r or tamper with the eviden c e.

¶43

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.

¶44

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. 14. Pending miscellaneous ap p lication(s), if any, also stands disposed o f.

¶45

(KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE May 06, 2026 SwarnjitS Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whethe reportable : Yes/No

¶46

SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.05.06 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Anuj v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anuj v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vimlesh Chauhan Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Mangat Singh Vs State of Punjab

Deepak Vs State of Haryana

Sonu and Another Vs State of Haryana and Others

Balwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Amandeep Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Another S