Gurminder Pal @ Prince v. State Of Punjab And Another




IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH (209) CRM-M-18505-2026 Date of Decision: 29.04.2026 GURMINDER PAL @ PRINCE ......Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH

Present:

Mr. Pranav Handa, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ekom Pal Sagoo, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. V.K. Pujara, Advocate for respondent No.2.

**** 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. 100 dated 15.06.2025 under Sections 137(2), 96, 61(2) and 64(2) of BNS and Sections 6, 17, 21 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Sadar Nakodar, District Jalandhar Rural.

2.

The translated version of the FIR is reproduced below:- "Statement of KK wife of GS, resident of Patti Bahoki, Village Sarih, PS Sadar Nakodar, District Jalandhar, aged 46 years. Phone No: 78145-7xxxx "I state that I am a housewife and reside at the address mentioned above. I was married about 25 years ago to GS, who has been residing abroad in England for a long time. We have three daughters. My eldest daughter, xxxx, and my middle daughter, xxxx, are both married. My youngest daughter, RK, was born on 17/02/2008 and is currently a 12th-grade student at Government Senior Secondary School, Sarih. On 09/06/2025, at approximately 2:00 PM, my daughter RK left the house without informing anyone. I searched for her extensively among relatives and in the surrounding area, but she was nowhere to be found.

Later, while checking the WhatsApp on my phone number 78145-7xxxx, 1 discovered a contact named Prince (using number 00447917066898). Upon making inquiries in the village, I learned that Prince, son of the late Satpal and resident of Patti Jai Chand, Sarih, had recently returned from abroad.

 Kaur, and his sister, Parminder Kaur. I recall that earlier, my daughter had arranged a phone call between me and this boy, during which he claimed to be from Village Chitti. Subsequently, his mother and sister also spoke with me, proposing a marriage between Prince and my daughter RK, promising to send her to Canada. I explicitly told them that my daughter is underage and still a student, and that I would need to consult my family before making any such decision. I strictly warned them not to contact my daughter further or take any wrong steps. I have a firm belief that the accused Prince, in conspiracy with his mother Charanjet Kaur and sister Parminder Kaur, has lured and taken away my daughter RK (who is approximately 17 years and 4 months old) with the intent of marriage. I request that legal action be taken against all three individuals and my daughter be recovered. My statement has been recorded in the presence of my brother, Kuldeep Singh, and it is correct.""

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case on the statement of the mother of the prosecutrix. This fact stands established from a bare perusal of the affidavit annexed at Annexure P-2, wherein the prosecutrix, aged about 18 years, has categorically stated that the FIR was registered without her knowledge or consent, and upon a complete misconception of facts. Rather she has even expressed therein her desire to solemnize marriage with the petitioner. Moreover, there is also a delay of 06 days in registration of the FIR. It is further submitted that there is no direct evidence on record that points towards the complicity of the petitioner.

Learned counsel has also submitted the testimony of the prosecutrix, which is accordingly taken on record, and contended that the concerned material witness has not supported the case of the prosecution before the learned trial Court and has been declared hostile. Learned counsel contends that the 28-year-old petitioner has already undergone custody of 07 months and 26 days. There is only one other case registered against him, which too has arisen out of the ongoing dispute inter se the same parties.

4.

Per contra, learned State counsel and learned counsel for Respdt.

 No.2 have vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned State counsel states that the petitioner was actively involved in the commission of the offence. Learned State counsel 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 07 months and 26 days. The learned State counsel, on instructions from the investigating officer concerned, submits that in the present case, charges were framed on 19.11.2025 and out of total 21 prosecution witnesses, only 06 have been examined till date. Learned State counsel 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.





   







!"

#



  

 


  

$

 %






  

    

               

     

  

   

   

       

         

    



  

  

  

   

         

     

   





  





                 

    

     

     

  



  

 

 ! 

   

    

   

 



 

   

 !           

 

 

  

  

 

             

      

  
  
   

   



      

   "    



     



  

   

  



 



  

 

       

  #   

  

 &'













 



(''  '

)  



 

 $



* '

+





    



'

+

 



   

 07 months and 26 days'

'

,

 

 $

 

 

 

  

  $

 











 







   



 





 





- 



  



.  ('

/

  

  

 



 

  - 

$

 

'

 

  $

'



* 



* 


 









   ,



 









  



 .





$





   

  





  - '

+

  -   

  



 $

*

  



.

 



 

 

-







 

      $ 



.  +



 

  0

 

1 $ 





 



   



 '

+

   $

 



 

  $  

  



.

* 3



!3

#

 

 !

" #

   
$ 

 '

0 



$ 





. 

4

 









 

4

5 







   
56   

.



$

 % 78 +

 $  $





'

78 +

 $

9 5 



 $

8'

78 +

 $ 





*  



*

 '

78 +



 





$







$

 '

78 +



    

-

 

   

 4 $











  





 

  $

 '

1





 







 



 

 



%
'

 '

1











.



 



*





:'

/ 

  

7 8

 



 

(KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE April 29, 2026 Ritika Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No