Gurjot Singh v. State Of Punjab

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (224) Date of Decision: 10.4.2026 Gurjot Singh ......Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH

Present:

Mr. Abhivadya Sood, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Guramrit Kaur, DAG, Punjab.

**** KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL) 1.

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. 131 dated 04.6.2025 and DDR under Sections 64 and 238 of BNS and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Ajnala, District Amritsar.

2.

The translated version of the FIR is reproduced below:- "Statement of xxxxxxx, daughter of Gurmukh Singh, resident of Abadi Baba Gam Chuk, Ballarwal, Police Station Ajnala, District Amritsar, aged about 17 years, Mobile number 62836-xxxxx. Stated that I am a resident of the above mentioned address and I am studying in Class 10 at Government Senior Secondary School, Ballarwal. Gurjot Singh, son of Bau Singh, resident of Chak Dogran, who had been keeping an evil eye on me for a long time and whenever I used to go to school, Gurjot Singh used to follow me and keep asking me to become his friend, to which I told him many a times that I do not want to be his friend, and I opposed him. That he did not stopped his acts. Since there is no flush bathroom at home, our whole family goes out to the fields. On 07.04.2025, I was going

-2out to the fields in the morning, it must have been around 06:00 a.m. in the morning, when Gurjot Singh came on a motorcycle and forcibly lift me on his motorcycle and took me to the house of his relative in village Bhakha Tara Singh, where no one was present in the house, where in a room, Gurjot Singh had forcibly built physical relations with me without my consent and raped me. He threatened me that "if you tell this to your family or anyone else, then I will kill you and your family". Then Gurjot Singh took me on his motorcycle and left me outside the village and went back to his village Chak Dogran. At first, I was afraid and did not talk to anyone about this. Even now, Gurjot Singh threatens me and asks me to have physical relation with him, about which I told my parents and today I was coming to the police station with my father Gurmukh Singh to give information to which you have met us. Action should be taken. Statement has been written, read over and heard and accepted it to be as correct."

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the petitioner aged 22 years, has been falsely implicated in this case by the prosecutrix-complainant, who herself was almost about 18 years at the time of the alleged occurrence. In fact, the petitioner and the prosecutrix were well known to each other. There is no evidence that point towards the complicity of the petitioner. Rather, there is a delay of two months in registration of the present FIR. He further submits that the victim already stands examined. The petitioner has undergone an actual custody of 10 months and 02 days and there is no other criminal case registered against him.

4.

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 10 months and 02 days. The learned State counsel, on instructions from the

-3investigating officer concerned, submits that in the present case, charges were framed on 14.8.2025 and out of total 17 prosecution witnesses, 06 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.

6.

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.

7.

In the present case, charges have been framed in relation to offence under Section 4 of the POCSO Act. In cases similar to the present one, factors which warrant consideration of the Court also include, but are not limited to the age of the prosecutrix and its difference from the age of the petitioner, so as to also determine the element of perversion; and the arguments raised, particularly with respect to the contents of the statements made by the prosecutrix.

8.

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

-4be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. 22.

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."

9.

Reverting to the case in hand, it is borne out from the record that charges came to be framed on 14.8.2025. Yet, only 06 out of 17 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 10 months and 02 days. It is also not disputed that he has no criminal antecedents and is not involved in any other case.

10.

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. 11.

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

-5lest 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.

12.

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

-6with 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.

13.

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.

14.

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. 15.

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

(KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE April 10th, 2026 Gurpreet Singh Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No