Manoj Alias Golden v. State Of Haryana And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH (213) Date of Decision:-29.01.2026 Manoj @ Golden ......Appellant

Versus

State of Haryana and others ......Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN ****

Present:

Mr. Robin Hooda, Advocate for the appellant.

Ms. Akshita Chauhan, DAG, Haryana.

**** ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral) 1.

The present appeal has been filed seeking grant of regular bail to the appellant in case FIR No. 78 dated 13.05.2024, registered under Section 365 IPC (Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 IPC and Section 06 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 3(2)(v) of SC and ST Act added lateron), at Police Station Bahu Akbarpur, District Rohtak Haryana (Annexure P-1). 2.

In furtherance to the order dated 04.08.2025, the complainant and the prosecutrix is present in Court today. 3.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the entire allegations levelled in the FIR are false, concocted, and part of a repeated pattern adopted by the complainant, wherein false cases are allegedly instituted for the purpose of blackmailing and extraction of money. In the present case also, the same modus operandi has been adopted, which is evident from the fact that the complainant has turned hostile. It is further submitted that the prosecution witness left the Court at the very moment when the cross-examination of the complainant was to commence.

4.

During her cross-examination, the complainant categorically stated that she had never met the appellant and her aunt had never taken her to any hospital for treatment. She further stated that the appellant neither took her in any truck nor committed any wrongful act with her at any point of time. The complainant also deposed that the allegations were falsely made and her statement before the learned Magistrate was recorded under pressure from the police and her family members. Learned counsel further stated that the said family member is none other than her own father, who is alleged to be the architect of the FIRs.

5.

Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant has been in custody since 22.05.2024 and that all the material witnesses have already been examined.

6.

Learned State counsel has filed the reply by way of affidavit of Rishabh Sodhi, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Meham, District Rohtak on behalf of respondent-State, which is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

7.

Learned State counsel has also filed the custody certificate of the appellant in Court today, which is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. As per the custody certificate, the appellant has been in custody for the last 01 year, 08 months and 07 days as on 29.01.2026. 8.

In light of the above and considering the fact that all the material witnesses have been examined and the fact that the complainant has turned hostile, coupled with the fact that the appellant has been in custody for the last 01 year, 08 months and 07 days, moreover, the trial is likely to take considerable time, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the appellant in custody. Accordingly, the appellant is

held entitled to the concession of regular bail. 9.

Without commenting upon the merits of the case, the present appeal stands allowed and the appellant is ordered to be released on bail if not required in any other case on furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned. The appellant shall, however, be released on the following conditions: i The appellant shall declare his ordinary place of residence and the mobile number used by him.

ii The appellant will not switch off his mobile and in case of any technical glitch, he has to give an alternate number, which will be available in his absence.

iii The appellant will mark his presence before the SHO concerned, after every 15 days and in case the SHO refuses to mark his presence, he is permitted to make an application before the Illaqa Magistrate, concerned.

iv The appellant will not leave the country without the prior permission of the Court, for which he will submit the copy of his passport also. However, in case the appellant does not possess a passport, then he shall file an undertaking to the said effect before being released.

The appellant shall abide by the terms and conditions as imposed in addition to Section 483 of BNSS, 2023. 10.

However, nothing stated above shall be construed as a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case and this order shall not be considered as parity qua any other co-accused in any manner whatsoever.

11.

It is further made clear that, in case, the appellant is found involved in any such activity once again, the State is at liberty to promptly move an appropriate application for cancellation of bail detailing out the circumstances and violation of conditions of bail. 12.

In addition to the above, the State will also be at liberty to proceed against the complainant and the prosecutrix for misleading the Court by telling lies either at the time of recording of the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. or during the recording of testimony before the learned Trial Court.

(ALOK JAIN) JUDGE January 29, 2026 parul Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether Reportable:- Yes/No