High CourtsSingle Bench

Monu vs State of Haryana

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 4 September 2025 · Citation: (2025) 09 P&H CK 0798

HON’BLE JUDGES
Amarjot Bhatti, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 164, 439 · Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 12 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 354(A), 354(D), 506, 509
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
CRM-M Of 13381 Of 2025
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 478 words

Amarjot Bhatti, J

1.

Petitioner – Monu has filed petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in FIR No.43 dated 01.05.2024, under Section 12 of POCSO Act and 354-A, 354-D, 506, 509 of IPC, registered at Police Station Sector 7, Panchkula (Haryana).

2.

As per facts of case, complainant ‘S.S.’ filed written complaint bearing No.334 dated 30.04.2024, alleging that his daughter ‘L’ aged about 15 years, was studying in 9th class in Government School, Panchkula. She did not return home from the school. Monu and his companions enticed away his daughter for physical exploitation. With these allegations, present FIR was registered. As per the status report, the victim was recovered and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 01.05.2024 before learned Illaqa Magistrate. On the basis of said statement, FIR was lodged under Sections 354-D, 506, 509 of IPC. Accused-Monu was arrested on 01.05.2024. After completion of investigation, challan was presented on 27.06.2024.

3.

Learned counsel for petitioner argued that petitioner is behind the bars since 01.05.2024. As per the status report, statement of material witness has been recorded i.e. the victim as PW-1 (Annexure P-3). Trial in this case may take long time. Petitioner is ready to abide by the terms of bail order. Therefore, his regular bail petition may be allowed.

4.

Bail petition is opposed by learned counsel representing State. It is pointed out that present petitioner is specifically named and there are serious allegations against him. At the time of occurrence, the victim was

15 years of age. On completion of investigation, challan was presented and now prosecution evidence is being recorded. At present, out of 11 prosecution witnesses, two witnesses have been examined. The victim as PW-1 fully supported the prosecution case. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to be released on regular bail.

5.

I have considered the arguments and have gone through the record. I have carefully gone through the statement of victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Annexure P-2). She has levelled allegations against the present petitioner for harassment as well as stalking whenever she went out. On the registration of present FIR, investigation was carried out and accused was arrested in this case on 01.05.2024. Now, his custody is more than 01 year and 04 months. During trial, statement of prosecutrix/victim has been recorded as PW-1 (Annexure P-3). At this stage, there is no occasion that petitioner can influence the victim. Trial in this case may take long time. He cannot be kept behind the bars for indefinite time period. Therefore, without expressing my mind on merits of the case, regular bail petition filed by petitioner – Monu is allowed. He is ordered to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Judge concerned.

6.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly as well.