AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J. (Oral)
The present first petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) has been filed for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 554 dated 19.11.2025 (Annexure P-1), registered under Sections 110 (corresponding to Section 308 IPC), 115 (corresponding to Section 321 IPC), 123 (corresponding to Section 328 IPC), 3(5) (corresponding to Section 34 IPC) and 351(2) (corresponding to Section 506 IPC) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station City Sirsa, District Sirsa.
As per the prosecution version, the present FIR was registered on the statement of Komal, aged about 14 years, daughter of Satbir Singh, resident of JBT Colony, District Sirsa. It is alleged that while the victim was studying in 9th class at Aarohi Model Senior Secondary School, Nathusari Chopta, she used to travel to and from school by bus. During this period, she came into contact with two girls namely Janhvi and Mannu, who allegedly gave her intoxicating tablets and persuaded her to consume the same. It is alleged that the victim continued consuming the said tablets for about two months and thereafter became addicted to intoxicating substances.
It is further alleged that after the said girls stopped meeting her, the victim started craving intoxicating substances and, about one year prior to registration of the FIR, left her home and started roaming around Sirsa Bus Stand and other places in search of intoxicants. During this period, she allegedly came into contact with accused persons namely Gullu, Jyoti, Rajni, Kaliya, Mangal @ Pandey, Rohit @ Majnu (present petitioner) and Babu Lal, who allegedly provided her intoxicating tablets/capsules, namely Signature and Pantodole, for consumption as well as for selling the same.It is alleged that the accused persons used to supply intoxicating substances to the victim and ask her to sell the same. It is further alleged that when the victim refused to comply with their directions, they used to beat and threaten her. It is specifically alleged that accused Babu Lal threatened the victim with dire consequences and compelled her to bring intoxicating substances for him.
It is further the case of the prosecution that while the victim was residing around Government Hospital, Sirsa, she came into contact with Tarun Kumar from Beti Bachao Sanstha, who got her admitted to Government Hospital, Sirsa for treatment. During the course of her treatment, whenever she was alone, accused persons including Rajni, Kaliya, Gullu, Jyoti and Babu Lal allegedly came to her and provided intoxicating substances.
It is alleged that the accused persons used to remain around the Government Hospital and kept watch for persons consuming intoxicating substances and supplied intoxicants to them for consumption as well as for sale. The victim expressed her desire to quit addiction and live with her family. She further stated that no molestation or any other wrongful act was committed with her during the aforesaid period.
On the basis of the statement of the victim, the present FIR was registered under Sections 115(1), 110, 123, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. During the course of investigation, the accused persons including the present petitioner-Rohit @ Majnu were arrested. The opinion of the attending doctor was obtained, wherein it was opined that consumption of strong opioid drugs at such age could lead to severe physical and mental disorders and, if consumed in higher doses, may prove fatal due to respiratory depression/cardiac arrest.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence whatsoever. It is contended that the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused solely on the basis of the statement of the victim and no recovery of any intoxicating substance has been effected from him.
Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was not arrested from the spot and there is no allegation that the petitioner was found supplying any intoxicating substance to the victim. It is argued that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are vague and general in nature and no specific role or overt act has been attributed to him.
It is further submitted that the victim herself has stated in her statement that after becoming addicted to intoxicating substances, she left her home and started roaming around Sirsa city in search of intoxicants. Learned counsel contends that there is no allegation that the petitioner forcibly administered any intoxicating substance to the victim or caused any injury to her.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the ingredients of Sections 110, 115(1), 123 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 are not attracted against the petitioner. It is argued that there is no material on record to suggest that the petitioner had any intention to cause death, hurt or any other harm to the victim. It is further submitted that no independent witness has been examined to corroborate the allegations against the petitioner and there is no incriminating evidence available on record connecting him with the alleged offences. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has been in custody since 29.11.2025, the investigation has been completed, challan has already been presented and no further custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required.
Learned counsel further submits that co-accused Jyoti has already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 09.07.2026 passed in CRM-M-35345-2026. It is also submitted that the trial is likely to take considerable time for conclusion and continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose. Learned counsel for the petitioner, thus, prays for grant of regular bail to the petitioner.
Notice of motion.
Mr. Tanuj Sharma, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and has filed the custody certificate dated 06.08.2026, which is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner has already undergone a total custody period of 08 months and 08 days.
Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. It is submitted that the victim is a minor girl aged about 14 years and the petitioner has been specifically named in the statement of the victim for allegedly supplying intoxicating substances to her.
Be that as it may, this Court has considered the fact that the petitioner has undergone custody for a period of 08 months and 08 days. The allegations against the petitioner are that he, along with other co-accused persons, allegedly supplied intoxicating tablets/capsules to the victim, who is a minor girl aged about 14 years. The allegations are primarily based upon the statement of the victim recorded during the course of investigation. It is not disputed that the investigation in the present case stands concluded, the challan has already been presented before the learned Trial Court and charges have also been framed. It is further not disputed that none of the prosecution witnesses have been examined so far and, therefore, the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. The petitioner is no longer required for any custodial interrogation. This Court also takes note of the fact that co-accused Jyoti has already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 09.07.2026 passed in CRM-M-35345-2026. Though the role attributed to each accused has to be considered independently, the said circumstance is also relevant while adjudicating the prayer for grant of bail to the present petitioner. This Court is conscious of the seriousness of the allegations and the fact that the victim is a minor. However, keeping in view the period of incarceration already undergone by the petitioner, completion of investigation, framing of charges, non-examination of prosecution witnesses and the likelihood of the trial taking considerable time, this Court is of the considered view that further detention of the petitioner would not serve any useful purpose.
Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, 2018 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein it has been held that grant of bail is the rule and refusal thereof is an exception, and that a person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. It is further submitted that the right to speedy trial forms an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the same has been consistently recognised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including in Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Another (SLO (Crl.) No. 8523/2024). In these circumstances, continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose, particularly when the trial can be effectively safeguarded by imposing appropriate conditions.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted on regular bail, subject to furnishing requisite bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, as the case may be, and further subject to the following conditions:-
The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Court or to the investigating agency.
The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever, nor shall attempt, directly or indirectly, to influence, intimidate, or contact any prosecution witness.
The petitioner shall not leave the territorial limits of India without obtaining the prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event he is in possession of a passport, he shall furnish its particulars before the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court.
The learned Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, before accepting the bail and surety bonds, shall obtain from the petitioner his permanent residential address as well as present correspondence address, duly supported by appropriate documentary proof. The Investigating Officer shall verify the correctness of the said addresses within 48 hours from the acceptance of the bail bonds and shall place a verification report on the record. In the event either of the addresses is found to be false, fictitious, or incorrect, it shall be open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of the concession of bail in accordance with law.
The petitioner shall furnish before the learned Trial Court, either at the time of furnishing the bail bonds or within such period as may be specified by the Court, Permanent Account Number (PAN), Aadhaar Number, particulars of all operative bank accounts, and a declaration disclosing details of immovable properties, if any. Any concealment of material particulars or furnishing of false information shall constitute a valid ground for seeking cancellation of bail in accordance with law.
The petitioner shall intimate the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court, in writing, of any change in residential address or mobile number within seven days from the date of such change.
The petitioner shall not commit any offence of a similar nature during the pendency of the trial and shall remain present before the learned Trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless his personal appearance is exempted in accordance with law. He shall not absent himself from the proceedings without obtaining prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event of any violation of the aforesaid conditions or his unauthorized absence from the trial proceedings, it shall be open to the learned Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law, including cancellation of the concession of regular bail and issuance of appropriate coercive process, including warrants of arrest.