Uday Alias Chintu v. State Of Haryana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH (149) CRM-M-72594-2025 Date of Decision: 12.03.2026 UDAY ALIAS CHINTU ......Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH
Present:
Mr. Parveen Chauhan, 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. 334 dated 30.08.2025 under Section 12 of POCSO Act and Sections 238(a), 351(2) of BNS, registered at Police Station Madhuban, District Karnal (Annexure P-1).
2.
The translated version of the FIR is reproduced below:- "Copy of complaint is attached, To, Hon'ble Superintendent of Police, Karnal. Subject: Application against 1. Chintu son of Shri Sukhbir Singh, caste Pasi, resident of village Singhara. Tehsil Nising. District Karnal. Mobile No. 70567-4xxxx Sir, 1. It is requested that I am Vikas son of Sh. Gulab Singh, permanent resident of village Kakrala, Police Station Madhuban, District Karnal. I am a peace loving and law abiding citizen. xxxx is my daughter, who is a minor.
2. That my daughter xxxx was studying in a school in Karnal. During this time, the above-mentioned accused Chintu used to follow my daughter and tried to talk to her forcefully. But my daughter did not want to talk to the above-mentioned accused. However, the above-mentioned accused continued to harass my daughter in this manner for a long time. When my daughter became very upset with the above-mentioned accused, my daughter asked the above-mentioned accused, "What do you want from me?" The accused replied, "I want to talk to you." In this way, the above-mentioned accused started talking to my daughter forcefully and kept asking her to meet him. But my daughter clearly refused to do so. The above
mentioned culprit also tried to establish an forcible relationship with my daughter by forcing her. 3. That during this time the culprit clicked a photo of my daughter in his mobile phone, which is still with the culprit. When my daughter told about the above incident at home, we were forced to take our daughter out of school and my daughter started staying at home. 4. That after this, when I arranged a marriage for my daughter somewhere, the above mentioned accused called there and got my daughter's alliance broken and publicly threatened the other side and said that she has to marry me. Whereas we do not want our daughter's relationship/marriage with this boy. 5. That after this, when I arranged my daughter's marriage elsewhere, the accused threatened me over the phone, saying that the girl was to be married to him.
He threatened to have me killed if I entered into a relationship with her, and that if she doesn't become his, he won't let her become anyone else's. 6. That the accused is repeatedly threatening us with photographs of my daughter, claiming he will expose her to the entire community. He has harassed us immensely. He threatens to kill us if we oppose him. 7. That, out of fear of the accused, I left my daughter with a relative in village Katchwa. The accused arrived there and attempted to forcibly abduct the girl. 8. That the aforementioned accused is causing us considerable social disrepute. However, the accused is roaming fearlessly. He is bent on ruining my daughter's life. If timely action is not taken, he could cause something wrong to my daughter, as he has been threatening to abduct her again.
This incident has been ongoing since March 01, 2025. Therefore, I request you to take the strict legal action against the above named accused and to ensure justice for me and my daughter. I shall be highly thankful to you. Date Sd/-Vikas Applicant Vikas son of Sh. Gulab Singh. resident of village Kakrala, Police Station Madhuban, District Karnal Mobile No. 816851389 Police Proceedings" 3.
Status report by way of affidavit of Manoj Kumar, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gharaunda (Karnal) has been filed by the State in the registry, which is taken on record.
4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, aged 20 years, has been falsely implicated in the present case on the statement made by the father of the prosecutrix, alleging that the petitioner used to tease and follow his daughter, and threatened to circulate her objectionable photographs on social media. It is contended that the petitioner never initiated contact with the prosecutrix; rather, the initial approach was made by the prosecutrix herself through her father's Instagram. It is further submitted that the interaction between the parties was limited to a consensual and voluntary
friendship, initiated and continued at the instance of the prosecutrix, and does not disclose any element of coercion, inducement or harassment on the part of the petitioner. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the Instagram chats exchanged between the petitioner and the prosecutrix, annexed as Annexure P-2. Moreover, the petitioner neither clicked nor possessed any objectionable photographs of the prosecutrix, therefore, the question of threatening to circulate the same does not arise. It is further submitted that the prosecution version suffers from inherent contradictions, inasmuch as the complainant alleges the prosecutrix to be a minor aged 16 years, while simultaneously claiming to have arranged her matrimonial alliance. 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.
"
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 19.01.2026 and out of total 18 prosecution witnesses, only the victim has 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.
7.
$
%&
'
$
( )
!
!
"
#
*"
$
#
!"
!" "
+
$
,
# #
"
"
.
$$
"
/
(
$
(
$
#
$
#
#
#
0
1 2
0
(
#
(
"
$
, 0
(
,
1
#
0
( $
1
3
!
.# (
#
$
"
# (
(
4
1
,
5#
%5
'
" #
$
!!"
3
( #
1
6
#
6
7
78
1
(
) 9:
(
(
$
"
% 9:
(
;
7
9:"
9:
(
, #
, 9$:
(
# (
9$:
0
#
6 (
(
$ !"
.
$
#
$
"
!<"
.
$
$
1
#
,
! "
9:# "
(KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE March 12, 2026 Ritika Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No