AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
RAMESH KUMARI, J.
The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS (erstwhile Section 439 of the Cr.P.C) by the petitioner for grant of regular bail as he has been implicated in criminal case arising out of First Information Report detailed hereinunder:-
| FIR No. | Dated | Sections | Police Station |
|---|---|---|---|
| 59 | 16.02.2026 | 140(3), 70(2), 127(2) of BNS, 2023, (365, 376 DA, 376 DB, 342 IPC), and u/s 6 of POCSO Act (added later on) | Bhiwani City. |
The above noted criminal case had been registered on the basis of the complaint submitted by respondent No.1 grand father of the victim wherein he alleged that on 16.02.2026 his grand daughter went to a nearby shop to purchase the stationery items with her grandmother but thereafter she has not returned to home.
After registration of the case, the investigation was conducted and the site plan of the place of recovery was prepared. The date of birth certificate of the victim was produced by her grand father i.e. complainant and the same was taken into police possession. The victim was recovered from Police Station, Purani Sabji Mandi, Rohtak and she was handed over to the complainant vide separate memo. Her statement under Section 183 of BNS-2023 was also got recorded and she was medicolegally examined. The relevant parcels were taken into police possession and sent to FSL. Sections 70(2), 127(2) of BNS-2023 and Section 6 of the POCSO Act were added later on. After counselling, the child was handed over to her family members. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation, the challan was presented against the present accused as well as other accused persons.
Custody certificate has been filed by the learned State counsel in Court which is taken on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed on record copy of statements of PW2 and PW3 i.e. complainant and his wife, who are grand-parents of the victim and the copy of order dated 13.07.2026 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani and the same are taken on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence and the victim in her statement before the trial Court did not support the case of the prosecution. Even the complainant and his wife i.e. PW2 and PW3 (grandparents of the victim) also did not support the prosecution version during their statements before the trial Court. Since the material prosecution witnesses did not support the prosecution case before the trial Court, the learned trial Court vide order dated 13.07.2026 sent her statement for comparison of her signatures with her signatures appended on statement under Section 183 BNS-2023 as well as copy of MLR. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon copy of order dated 13.07.2026 and statements of the complainant and his wife i.e. PW2 and PW3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that even FSL report negates the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the offences in question.
Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the present petitioner alongwith co-accused had enticed away the victim and committed penetrative sexual assault upon her but the victim in her statement before the trial Court did not support the prosecution allegations as both the parties have entered into a compromise between them. The trial is in progress and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for concession of regular bail.
Custody certificate of the petitioner-accused reveals that he is in custody in this case since 14.03.2026. It is a case where the victim and her grandparents did not support the prosecution case before the trial Court. The completion of trial will take a time and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner-accused in further custody.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, without commenting upon the merits of the case, it is a fit case where the petitioner is entitled for the concession of regular bail. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted the concession of bail subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds 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 his passports 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 exempted by a specific order of Court.
(v)The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which, he is accused, or for commission of which he 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 liberty.
(viii)The petitioner shall furnish his address and mobile numbers 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.
(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.