Muskan v. State Of Punjab And ORS.

CRM-M-16726 of 2026(O&M) sent 'M' home. At about 1:00 p.m., when she and her husband returned from home, 'M' was missing. She immediately called Muskan but she did not take her call. They started looking for 'M' but she was nowhere to be found. When they went to the house of Muskan at about 2:30 p.m., her sister-in-law Simran also reached the house and informed that 'M' had reached home. They went home and saw clothes of 'M' soaked in blood and 'M' in distress, she was not able to breathe. On inquiry she informed that she had gone to the Salon with Muskan, where Ajaypal of village Sultanwind took her and Muskan on his motorcycle to a Hotel. After some time, Ajaypal's friend Sima came to the room and raped 'M' without her consent. Then he left 'M' on the motorcycle and ran away.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was in custody w.e.f. 03.10.2025. Compromise had been arrived at with parents of the prosecutrix, who had agreed to solemnise marriage of the prosecutrix with the main accused. It was a case of love affair and the role attributed to Muskan was only of a facilitator. At the time of registration of the FIR 'M' was only 5 days short of turning 18. Petitioner had no criminal antecedents and thus deserved to be enlarged on bail. 4.

Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for regular bail on the ground of serious nature of allegations and gravity of crime. It was argued that petitioner was an active participant in crime having taken 'M' to the Hotel by deceit and she was not entitled to concession of bail. 5.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has no objection to the prayer for bail.

CRM-M-16726 of 2026(O&M) 6.

Petitioner is alleged to have lured the minor prosecutrix, in a preplanned manner to a Parlour after seeking permission from her mother and to have taken her with one Ajay Pal to a Hotel where she left her after giving her water to drink which rendered her dizzy. Thereafter, the prosecutrix was allegedly violated by co-accused. Main witnesses are yet to be recorded. Petitioner is alleged to have played a major role in the commission of offence. Considering the gravity of offence, it is not a fit case to release the petitioner on bail despite the period of incarceration. 7.

Dismissed.

All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) JUDGE 26.05.2026 reema Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

No