High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/13409/2025allowed

Rahul Alias Baba v. State Of Haryana

2026-03-10Ms. Justice Kirti Singh6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH (107) CRM-M-13409-2025 Date of Decision: 10.03.2026 RAHUL ALIAS BABA ......Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH

Present:

Mr. Raj Kumar Bhatia, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Saumya Ahluwalia, Sr. DAG, Haryana **** KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL) 1.

The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 of BNSS has been invoked for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 770 dated 30.09.2023 under Sections 376(2)(f), 376(a)(b) of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Civil Lines Sirsa, District Sirsa (Annexure P-1).

The translated version of the FIR is reproduced below:- "Stated that I am resident of above noted address, I left my education in 3rd class and now I am residing with my grandmother from last 15 days. My mother gone to Mansa for purpose of Jagran. I staying with my grandmother xxxx at Guru Nanak Nagar Sirsa on 29.09.2023 at 5 PM I was with my maternal uncle Rahul in my grandmother's house. My grandmother was not at house. My maternal uncle bolted main gate and came to me in my room and directed me to bring the water. When I stucke into room for serving water to my maternal u uncle. My maternal uncle put me on bed and removed my wearing Nikkar and also removed his wearing pent. Thereafter, my maternal uncle put his hand on my mouth and started put penis in my Vagina.

I felt pain suddenly the outside gate was locked by someone so my maternal uncle left me and directed me to see who is on gate after wearing Nikkar. I opened outside gate but none was present there. I went outside the gate immediately and I slowly on foot reached near the house of my mother situate at Gol Diggi. My maternal uncle Rahul also followed me. I hide myself in the street.

Shopkeeper uncle on 99921-2xxxx and stated whole story to my mother. My mother came to house in night thereafter, my mother brought me in the police Station. My maternal uncle Rahul may be punished. I recorded my statement in front of my mother. RTI/ Supra Sd/- Supra"

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, aged 31 years, has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of the statement of the prosecutrix, alleging wrongful acts by the petitioner. It is submitted that the allegations are a result of a property dispute, as the mother of the prosecutrix, who is the real sister of the petitioner, intends to claim a share in the house belonging to the mother of the petitioner and has been pressurizing the family of the petitioner for the same. It is further submitted that the mother of the prosecutrix has a history of making false allegations, and had earlier lodged a similar complaint against one Bharat Bhushan, which, upon police investigation, was found to be false.

The prosecutrix has also admitted in her deposition before the learned trial court that a quarrel had taken place prior to the alleged incident regarding the said property dispute. Reliance is also placed upon the FSL report (Annexure P-5), which indicates that no semen was detected on the person of the prosecutrix. It is also submitted that there is no cogent or credible evidence on record to substantiate the allegations levelled against the petitioner. Furthermore, learned counsel submits that the material witnesses have already been examined before the learned Trial Court. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has already undergone an actual custody of 01 year 11 months and 16 days and has clean antecedents.

Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. She states that the petitioner was actively involved in the commission of the offence. She 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 11 months and 16 days. The learned State counsel, on instructions from official concerned, submits that in the present case, charges were framed on 27.05.2024 and out of total 25 prosecution witnesses, 04 have 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. 5.

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

! "! # $ "! #! ! $

# $$# # %

! !

# $

) !*

+% $

! # #

,% % % - !

) $

.#%

!) ! #

##%

# ! !

01 year 11 months and 16 days% / ! # $$ % % 0 !! ) $

# ! ! !

# $

! ! ! ! 1!% % 2 #

)! # !

! ) # ) .#%

! )! .

# #

1! !

! )! $ ! 1!%

! 3

! / ) ! !

!$ %

! !! )! !

! 1 . 5 #

&5 (!

" #

% 3

) ! 1! "! !

! "!

!67! !

1 ) # * 89

) # ) ! % 89

)

!:6#

)89% 89

)

. !

.# % 8$9

## # ) ## ) ! % 8$9

# !#

"! ) ! # # !

# ) $%

% % /

!% % / $ # $

! 1!

! .

# %

% 2 #!

89 % (KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE March 10, 2026 Ritika Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No