Rahul vs State Of Haryana

Kirti Singh, J

The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been invoked for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 353 dated 21.6.2024 under Sections 363, 366, 376(3), 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Barwala, District Hisar.

Ms. Garima Dixit, Advocate puts in appearance on behalf of the complainant and files her power of attorney, which is taken on record.

The facts in brief are that on 21.6.2024, the complainant got recorded his statement to the police, stating therein that on 20.6.2024, at about 8.00 P.M. his minor daughter left home without informing anybody. They inquired in the neighbourhood and checked the phones kept at their houses, whereupon it was found that his daughter had been communicating with Rahul-present petitioner via social media. They tried to contact the petitioner on his mobile but his mobile was switched off. The complainant anldleges that the petitioner took his daughter by alluring her.

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the petitioner, aged 20 years has been falsely implicated in this case on the statement of the complainant, levelling allegations that the petitioner enticed away her daughter. In fact, the petitioner and the prosecutrix were well known to each other, and that the present matter is an apparent case of an adolescent love relationship. However, when the family members of the prosecutrix became aware about the said fact, the prosecutrix voluntarily left her house with the petitioner. It is further submitted that the prosecutrix, in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. had specifically stated that she had left her house on her own accord as she was apprehending danger from her family. Further, she also expressed therein a strong desire to reside with the petitioner at his house for her safety, and did not level any allegations against the petitioner. However, in her subsequent statement recorded before the learned trial Court, the prosecutrix changed her version and levelled false allegations against the petitioner under pressure from her family. It is further submitted that there are material contradictions in the statement of the prosecutrix, who now stands examined before the learned trial Court. The petitioner has undergone an actual custody of 01 year, 09 months and 05 days and there is no other criminal case registered against him.

Per contra, learned State counsel as well as the learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner was actively involved in the commission of the offence. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the petitioner had violated the minor victim on account of which she became pregnant and thereafter also had to undergo

Learned State counsel has filed custody certificate in Court today and the same is taken on record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone an actual custody of 01 year, 09 months and 05 days. The learned State counsel, on instructions from the investigating officer concerned, submits that in the present case, charges were framed on 16.4.2025 and out of total 25 prosecution witnesses, 01 has been examined till date. She submits that in view of the serious allegations against the petitioner, he is not entitled to the concession of regular bail.

Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

Trite to say that at the stage of considering a petition seeking bail, the Court, though not required to make a roving inquiry into the evidence, must take into consideration the nature of the offence, severity of the punishment and prima facie, the involvement of the accused and the material on record.

Before proceeding, a gainful reference can be made to the observations passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, relevant paras whereof reads thus:

"21. 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 is required to 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 unconvicted 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."

Reverting to the case in hand, it is borne out from the record that charges came to be framed on 16.4.2025 Yet, only 01 out of 25 cited prosecution witnesses have been examined. The pace of the proceedings, thus, indicates that the conclusion of trial is not imminent. The petitioner has already remained in actual custody for a period of 01 year, 09 months and 05 days. It is also not disputed that he has no criminal antecedents and is not involved in any other case.

While the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations levelled against him and the culpability, if any, would be tested and determined on the touchstone of evidence during the course of trial, the parameters governing the grant of bail necessitate a balanced consideration of the nature of accusation, the stage of the trial, the antecedents of the accused, and the likelihood of his absconding or influencing the course of justice.

Presently, no material has been placed on record to suggest that the petitioner poses a flight risk or that his release would impede the fair conduct of the trial, particularly when the material witness stands examined. Therefore, upon taking into account all the considerations stated hereinbefore, and without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case lest it may prejudice the trial, this Court is of the opinion that the continued detention of the petitioner, in the backdrop of the pace of the proceedings and the substantial period of incarceration already undergone, would not advance the cause of justice. The guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which includes the right to a speedy trial, obliges the Court to ensure that pre-trial incarceration does not assume a punitive character. The prolonged incarceration, without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future, would also run contrary to the settled legal principle that 'bail is the rule and jail is the exception', as reaffirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2018) 3 SCC 22.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed, and to ensure that the interests of justice are adequately safeguarded, the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail upon furnishing of adequate bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate, subject to the following terms and conditions:-

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

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

(iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

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

(v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.

It is reiterated that the observations made in hereinabove are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail petition, and must not be construed as a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.