High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/24491/2025allowed

Chetan Alias Acharya v. State Of Haryana

2025-09-11Mrs. Justice Sukhvinder Kaur4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Sr. No.219 Case No. : CRM-M-24491-2025 Decided On : September 11, 2025 Chetan @ Acharya ....

Petitioner vs.

State of Haryana ....

Respondent CORAM :

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR.

* * * Present :

Mr. Sushil Sheoran, Advocate and Mr. R. A. Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. P. K. Garg, DAG, Haryana.

* * * SUKHVINDER KAUR , J.

Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, in case FIR No.117 dated 14.05.2024, under Section 377 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012, registered at Police Station Dadri City, District Charkhi Dadri.

Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the complainant namely Bhup Singh made a complaint against the petitioner on 14.05.2024 before the police, stating therein that his son D (name withheld), aged 11 years, was studying in the Champapuri Gurukul for the last two years and the petitioner was working there as a teacher. Both - the petitioner and his son were staying at the same hostel. For the last 10-15 days, the petitioner was alleged to be engaging in immoral acts with the son of the complainant,

regarding which the complainant was informed by his son on 14.05.2024 itself. So, the complainant approached the police authorities for taking strict legal action against the petitioner. Based on his statement, the present FIR was registered and petitioner was arrested.

Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely involved in the present case. The father of alleged victim, in connivance with one Sunil - owner of a shop, tried to implicate the petitioner in false case. In the MLR of son of the complainant, no external injury was found. Even as per FSL report dated 24.05.2024, no semen was detected in all the exhibits. The concerned doctor was examined as prosecution witness, who deposed that it was quite possible that the father of victim was levelling false allegations upon the petitioner as nothing incriminating was found as per FSL report. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that no other criminal case is pending against the petitioner. He is in custody since 14.05.2024 and trial of the case is likely to take considerable time. Therefore, the petitioner be granted concession of regular bail.

Per Contra, learned State counsel opposed the present bail petition and contended that the allegations against the petitioner are grave and serious in nature. The petitioner, being teacher of the victim, had spoiled the fiduciary relationship and high name of a teacher. If such a person is released on bail, it may give a wrong message to the Society. So, he does not deserve the concession of bail. However, he has fairly conceded that the petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the case file.

As per the allegations, the petitioner committed unnatural act with son of the complainant aged 11 years. As per the MLR of the victim (Annexure P-2), no external injury was found on the body. As per report received from Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Haryana, Sunaria, Rohtak (Annexure P-4), semen could not be detected on any of the exhibits sent to the said laboratory. The copies of the aforesaid documents i.e. MLR of the victim and report from RFSL have been annexed by learned State Counsel along with Status Report as Annexures R-2 and R-3 respectively. As per the Custody Certificate dated 10.09.2025, which has been placed on record, the petitioner has already undergone custody of 01 year 03 months and 26 days. No other criminal case has been found to be registered against the petitioner. Trial of the case is going on, which is likely to take considerable time. So, no useful purpose would be served by further detaining the petitioner behind the bars.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted on regular bail, on furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds, to the satisfaction of concerned learned Trial Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.

However, nothing observed herein above shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The observations recorded above are only for the purpose of deciding the present bail petition. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of along with the present petition.

September 11, 2025 (SUKHVINDER KAUR) monika JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No.

Whether reportable ?

Yes/No.