← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/15101/2026allowed

Danish Alias Danish Khan v. State Of Haryana

2026-05-27Justice (To Be Nominated)3 pages

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-15101-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.05.2026 Danish @ Danish Khan ..... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana .......Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEERJA K. KALSON

Present:

Mr. Rahul Jaswal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Atul Gaur, AAG, Haryana.

NEERJA K. KALSON, J.

1.

The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.184 dated 01.07.2025 under Sections 351(3) and 64(2)(m) of the BNS (corresponding Sections 506 and 376 (2) (m) of the IPC) (Section 6 of the POCSO Act was added later on), registered at Police Station Model Town, District Panipat (Annexure P-1).

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present case arises out of a love affair between the petitioner and the prosecutrix and that both of them have solemnized marriage with each other as per Muslim rites and ceremonies on 11.07.2025. It is contended that the prosecutrix is presently residing at her matrimonial home along with her in-laws and both parties intend to reside together peacefully as husband and wife upon release of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has been in custody since 16.02.2026. It is also submitted that charges have

-2been framed and none of the prosecution witensses have been examined till date. Learned counsel further submits that the parties have also filed a petition for quashing of the FIR before this Court bearing CRM-M-36938 of 2025, which is pending consideration. Therefore, prayer has been made for grant of concession of regular bail to the petitioner. 3.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant/prosecutrix, who is present in person before this Court, submits that she had solemnized marriage with the petitioner as per Muslim rites and ceremonies on 11.07.2025 and is presently residing at her matrimonial home along with the family members of the petitioner. It is further submitted that she has no objection in case the concession of regular bail is granted to the petitioner and that both parties intend to reside together as husband and wife.

4.

Per contra, learned State counsel, upon instructions from the Investigating Officer, while opposing the present petition, submits that the allegations levelled in the FIR are serious in nature and involve offences under the provisions of the BNS and the POCSO Act. However, it is not disputed that the prosecutrix has solemnized marriage with the petitioner and is presently residing at her matrimonial home. It is further submitted that the charges have been framed and none of the prosecution witnesses have been examined till date.

5.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the paper-book.

6.

A perusal of the record would show that the matter arises out of a relationship between the petitioner and the prosecutrix, who have now

-3solemnized marriage with each other on 11.07.2025. The prosecutrix herself has appeared before this Court and has categorically stated that she has no objection to the grant of regular bail to the petitioner and that both parties intend to reside together peacefully as husband and wife. 7.

This Court also cannot lose sight of the fact that the petitioner has remained in custody since 16.02.2026, the charges have already been framed and none of the prosecution witnesses have been examined till date. Thus, the conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time. 8.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, the custody undergone by the petitioner, the stand taken by the prosecutrix, the stage of trial and without commenting upon the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail.

9.

Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

10.

Nothing observed here-in-above shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall proceed independently in accordance with law. 11.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (NEERJA K. KALSON) 27.05.2026 JUDGE SN/s.khan Whether Speaking/Reasoned :

Yes/No Whether Reportable :

Yes/No