Ritik v. State Of Haryana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH (141) CRM-M-64123-2025 Date of Decision: 12.03.2026 RITIK ......Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH
Present:
Mr. Balraj Gujjar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Brijesh Sharma, AAG, 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. 513 dated 11.11.2024 under Section 4 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station SGM Nagar, Faridabad, District Faridabad (Haryana). 2.
The translated version of the FIR is reproduced below:- "TO, SHO P.S. NIT III Faridabad Sir, It is requested that I Ramesh son of Sohanlal is resident of h.NO, 438 near Motor Cycle Pale Kalyanpuri slum Nit 3 Faridabad. I am about 39 years old and I have 5 children, of whom the eldest daughter is 13 years old. Today on 11.11.2024, at around 2 am in the morning, I got a call from Akash. He called me downstairs and I found my nephew Akash and Sachin and my daughter downstairs. My nephew told me that my daughter, was caught with Ritik who is my neighbor, in his DJ shop and Ritik had run away. When I asked my daughter, she told me that she became friends with Ritik on 10.10.2024. Ritik told my daughter yesterday on 10.11.24 that she should come to his shop to meet him at night. Today on 11.11.
24, she came down at around 1 am and Ritik opened the door of our house in front of the shops and took her to his DJ shop made of iron and made physical relations with my daughter today on 11.11.24 at around 1 am. Ritik, son of Ashok, lives with his family in the house next to my house. This is Ritik's own house. Legal action should be taken against Ritik. Applicant name Ramesh dated 11.11.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, aged 20 years, 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 established physical relations with his minor daughter. It is submitted that the age of the prosecutrix is a disputed question of fact. Furthermore, upon her medical examination, no injuries were found on the person of the prosecutrix. Reliance in this regard is placed on the MLR annexed as Annexure P-3. It is submitted that there is no cogent evidence on record against the petitioner to establish the alleged offences against the prosecutrix. Rather, both the complainant and the prosecutrix did not level any allegations against the petitioner in their respective depositions made before the learned trial Court, and were thus declared hostile. The copies of testimonies, the concerned material witness have been presented in court, which are accordingly taken on record.
!
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
. The learned State counsel, on instructions from official concerned, submits that in the present case, charges were framed on 14.05.2024 and out of total 20 prosecution witnesses, 02 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
$ &
'( )
&
+
!
!
"
#
,!
&
$ !
! !
-
.!!
/ 0
*
& /!
"
!
"
!
1
&&
!
* &
$ * & $
& $ $ $ #
3!
!
4
#
* !
&$ * / $
&
&
!
& &
3 $
$ &
& & $
&#!
"
$ #
$ * /
3 $
$ #
$ * & 3!
"
5 1$
$
& !
"
$ *
$ *
6 3 / 7$
'7 )
" #
$
!
5
*$ 3 %
$
% 8
89
$ 3 * + .0 "
* *
& !
.0 "
*
:8
*.0!
.0 "
*
/$
/ !
.&0 "
$
!
.&0 "
#
% $
% *
*
&!
!
1
& $
&
!
!
1 &
&
3
$ / !
4
.0$ !
(KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE March 12, 2026 Ritika Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No