Abid v. State Of Haryana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH (213) CRM-M-22370-2026 Date of Decision: 14.05.2026 ABID ......Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH
Present:
Mr. Vikas Saroha, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Brijesh Sharma, AAG, Haryana.
**** KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL) 1.
The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 of BNSS/439 of Cr.P.C. has been invoked for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 586 dated 27.09.2025 under Sections 140(3), 137(2), 351(3) of BNS (Section 365, 363, 506 of IPC) and Section 6 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Palla, Faridabad, District Faridabad (Haryana). 2.
The translated version of the FIR is reproduced below:- "To the SHO, Dabua Faridabad Sir, I am xxxx w/o Rakesh Gupta, resident of Vill. Akbar Pur, Police Station Paliganj, District Patna, Bihar, presently residing at DC-242, Dabua Colony, Faridabad. I have three children. My second daughter, aged 16, left home without informing me on 20-7-2025. In this regard, FIR No. 31 was registered on 05-08-2025 at Police Station Anand Vihar, Delhi. She was found on 13-8-2025. The police sent her to a juvenile centre. The girl was handed over to me on 13-8-25. The girl's statement was recorded by the police. Based on the findings, the case was dismissed. My daughter left home again on 6-9-25. I suspect that she might be with Akash and Sumit. Wheatish complexion, long face, healthy body, age 16 years, height 4'11" wearing black colored jeans pant and black colored top. I have searched for him a lot on my own till now. He was not found. Search should be done. Sd/- Sarojini."
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, now aged 24 years, has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the prosecutrix, in her statement recorded under Section 183 of
BNSS, did not level any overt allegations against the petitioner. Infact, even in her deposition before the trial Court, she did not support the prosecution case and was thus declared hostile. Reliance is placed upon the testimony of the prosecutrix annexed as Annexure P-2. As such, there is no cogent evidence on record to substantiate the even otherwise sweeping and omnibus allegations leveled against the petitioner. The bona fide of the complainant is also questioned, by submitting that an earlier FIR bearing No.444 of 2021 u/s 376 of IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Bharthana Distt. Etava, concerning the same prosecutrix, was got lodged by her. However, the accused therein stands acquitted, vide judgment dated 12.03.2024 since the prosecutrix and complainant did not support the case against them. It is further submitted that the petitioner has already undergone custody of 07 months and 15 days. There is no other case registered against the petitioner. 4.
Per contra, learned State counsel has 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 15 days. The learned State counsel, on instructions from the investigating officer concerned, submits that in the present case, charges were framed on 17.12.2025 and out of total 18 prosecution witnesses, only 02 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 15 days% ,
)% -
#
#
.
/ 0% 1
.
#
%
%
*
*
-
/
#
.
.
#
*
/
.
#
/
2
&
, #
%
#
#
/
* 4
4
"
! "
#
&% 2
#
/
5
5
6
67 /
# $ 89
# #
%
$ 89
# :
6
89% 89
#
*
*
8
#
#
.
5 #
#
&&% ,
% &% ,
/
*
&%
89
(KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE May 14, 2026 Ritika Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No