Junaid v. State of Haryana

Mr. Anupal S. Tanwar, Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3. **** KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL)

This is the third petition for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 760 dated 31.12.2023 under Section 365 IPC (later on Section 365 IPC was deleted and Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n), 376(3), 506 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act were added), registered at Police Station Industrial Sector-29, Panipat District Panipat.

The allegations against the petitioner are that he in connivance with the other co-accused has enticed away the minor prosecutrix, committed rape upon her and also threatened her.

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the petitioner, aged now over 21 years, has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant on the allegations of enticing away the prosecutrix- respondent No. 3. It is submitted that the petitioner and respondent No. 3 GURPREET SINGH 2026.05.22 18:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh were well known to each other. In fact, after the petitioner was, vide order CRM-M-16613-2026 -2- dated 28.7.2025, granted interim bail for a period of two weeks, the prosecutrix, who had already attained the age of majority, solemnized marriage with him on 03.8.2025. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the marriage certificate (Annexure P-6). After solemnization of marriage, the petitioner duly surrendered before the jail authorities. Learned counsel further submits that all the prosecution witnesses stand examined. The petitioner has undergone an actual custody of 02 years, 03 months and 19 days and there is no other criminal case registered against him.

Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 has not disputed the averments made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He states that the petitioner was actively involved in the commission of the offence. He 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 02 years, 03 months and 19 days. The learned State counsel, on instructions from the investigating officer concerned, submits that in the present case, charges were framed on 27.3.2024 and all the prosecution witnesses have been examined. He 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 GURPREET SINGH 2026.05.22 18:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh material on record. CRM-M-16613-2026 -3-

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 27.3.2024 and all the cited prosecution witnesses have been examined. The petitioner has already remained in actual custody for a period of 02 years, 03 months and 19 days. It is also not disputed that he has no criminal antecedents and is not involved in any other case. The petitioner and the prosecutrix have solemnized marriage on

03.8.2025, which fact has not been controverted by the learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3. GURPREET SINGH 2026.05.22 18:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-16613-2026 -4-

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 witnesses stand 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.

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. May 21st, 2026 Gurpreet Singh (KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : : Whether reportable GURPREET SINGH 2026.05.22 18:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Yes/No Yes/No