High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/68249/2025allowed

Gobind Singh Alias Lavi Singh v. State Of Punjab

2026-03-12Ms. Justice Kirti Singh7 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH (144) CRM-M-68249-2025 Date of Decision: 12.03.2026 GOBIND SINGH ALIAS LAVI SINGH ......Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH

Present:

Mr. Imran Farooqi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Yadwinder Singh, AAG, Punjab.

**** 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. 44 dated 30.06.2024 under Sections 363, 366-A of IPC, 64(1) of BNS and Section 4 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Sandaur, District Malerkotla (Annexure P-1).

The translated version of the FIR is reproduced below:- "Statement of xxxx wife of Gurpreet Singh, resident of Village Lohatbaddi, Police Station Raikot, District Ludhiana. Age: 34 years. Mobile No. 964660xxxx.Statement is as follows: I am a resident of the above-mentioned address and do household work. I have one son, Surinder Singh, aged 15 years, and an elder daughter named xxxx, aged about 17 years, whose date of birth is 1907-2007. My daughter is a minor. My daughter passed her 10+1 class in the year 2023 from Government MDC Secondary School, Lohatbaddi. Presently, she was pursuing a computer course at Jhaner Road, Sandaur. On dated 20.06.2024, like every day, my daughter left home around 9:00 AM to attend the computer course at Sandaur. She usually returns from the computer course at Sandaur to the village by about 2:45 PM. However, on 20.06.2024, despite waiting until the evening, she did not return home. Then, regarding my daughter xxxx, I contacted her friend xxxx

daughter of Gurpreet Singh, who lives in my neighborhood and does the computer course with my daughter at Sandaur, on her mobile number 8464063390. She told me that today xxxx did not board the bus with us after the computer course; she remained standing at Bus Stand Sandaur. She has not returned home to date. We have searched for her among our relatives as well, but nothing has been found out about her. I have full belief that my daughter xxxx has been lured, enticed, and taken away by Lavi Singh son of Bhola Singh, resident of Village Kalyan, on dated 20.06.2024 on the pretext of marriage. Legal action should be taken against him. I have dictated my statement today, read it, and heard it; it is correct. SD/- (Signed) xxxx 30-06-2024"

Status report by way of affidavit of Manavjit Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division Malerkotla, District Malerkotla has been filed by the State, which is taken on record. A copy thereof has been furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, aged 21 years, has been falsely implicated in the present case on the statement made by the mother of the prosecutrix, alleging that the petitioner had enticed her minor daughter, aged 17 years, on the pretext of marriage. It is submitted that the petitioner and the prosecutrix were admittedly well-known to each other and were in constant contact on social media, as is the own admission of the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS. There is no cogent evidence on record to establish the alleged offences against the petitioner.

Rather, both the complainant as well as the prosecutrix in their testimonies before the learned Trial Court, have not supported the case of the prosecution against the petitioner and have categorically denied the commission of abduction or sexual assault by him. Furthermore, they attributed the pregnancy of the prosecutrix to an untraced individual namely Ajay Kumar.

respectively.

# 5.

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 07.02.2025 and out of total 11 prosecution witnesses, 06 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. 6.

Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

% & &

' % ( '

(& % & (

& (( #

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.

& (

)* +

(

, -

# (

.# # #

( /# $

# 0

((

# !!# , (

& & & , ( &

( & & & %

2# !# 3 &

, # (& , / &

(

( (

2 &

& ( ,

( ( &

(%# $ & %

& , /

2 &

& %

& , ( 2# $

4 !

0& ,

( # $

& ,

5 2 / 6&

)6 +

# $

! %

!"# 4 &

,& 2 '

' 7

& 2 , - 9:

, ,

( # 9:

,9:# 9:

/ # 9(:

& ,

# 9(:

' ,

(# !# 0

( &

(

# !

# 0 (

(

& / #

!# 3

9:& & # (KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE March 12, 2026 Ritika Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No