Ravi Kumar v. State Of Haryana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH (140) CRM-M-63779-2025 Date of Decision: 05.03.2026 RAVI KUMAR ......Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH
Present:
Mr. Mudit Johar, Advocate for Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Anmol Malik, DAG, Haryana.
**** 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. 129 dated 20.04.2025 under Sections 137(2), 61(2), 65(1), 96 of BNS and Section 4 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Tosham, District Bhiwani (Haryana).
2.
The translated version of the FIR is reproduced below:- "To, The SHO, Police Station Tosham, District BhiwaniSubject: Application regarding missing minor daughter RespectedSir,I, Rajesh Kumar, son of Dariya Singh, resident of village Sandwa, district Bhiwani, am engaged in farming. I have four daughters and one son. My youngest daughter xxxx, aged about 16 years, studies in Class 10 at Government Senior Secondary School, Sandwa. On 20.04.2025 at about 11:00 AM, my daughter xxxx left home without informing anyone. I searched for her everywhere, but she could not be found.I have a strong suspicion that Ravi, son of Mahendra, resident of village Sandwa, has lured and enticed my daughter xxxx away with the intention of marrying her. I request that my daughter xxxx be traced and appropriate legal action be taken against Ravi. Complainant: Rajesh Kumar, son of Dariya Singh Village Sandwa, District Bhiwani Mobile: 981273xxxx / 946757xxxx."
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of the statement made by the father of the prosecutrix, alleging that the petitioner had enticed her away, for the reason that, the 19 year old petitioner was well acquainted with the prosecutrix, aged over 16 years. It is submitted that the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS categorically stated that she had left her home on her own free will. It is further submitted that in her statement before the learned Magistrate, she stated that she was being harassed and humiliated by her family members, and therefore she had compelled the petitioner to take her along, even threatening to commit suicide if he refused.
It is also argued that as per the medical examination, no injuries were found on the person of the prosecutrix, and the FSL report merely detected semen on Exhibit-4 of the petitioner. Reliance is placed on the statement of the prosecutrix, the medical report and the FSL report annexed as Annexures P-3, P-5 and P-6 respectively. It is submitted that there is no cogent evidence on record against the petitioner that could establish his guilt beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt.
"
4.
Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He states that the petitioner was actively involved in the commission of the offence. He 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 official concerned, submits that in the present case, charges were framed on 09.07.2025 and out of total 28 prosecution witnesses, 22 have been examined
till date. He 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.
#
$ % %
& $ ' &
'% $ % '
% '' "
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.
B
% '
() *
'
,
!
!
"
#
"
'
%
"
"
"
-
+
' ."
10 months and 02 days"
/
''
"
"
+ '
% + ' %
' % % % $
1"
!!"
2
$
+ "
'% + ""
.
'
* !- 34**"
' '
1 %
% '
' '
%
'$"
% $
% + .
1 %
% $
% + ' 1"
5 /%
%
' "
% +
% +
6 1 . 7%
(7 *
" #
$
! "
5
+% 1 &
%
& 8
89
% 1 + , :;
+ +
' "
:;
+
<8
+:;"
:;
+
.%
. "
:';
%
"
% :';
$
%
& +
+
'"
!"
/
' %
'
"
!="
/ '
'
1
% .
"
"
2
:;% "
(KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE March 05, 2026 Ritika Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No