Vikas Bawa @ Ballu @ Maan v. State Of Punjab
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH (151) CRM-M-73643-2025 Date of Decision: 12.03.2026 VIKAS BAWA @ BALLU @ MAAN ......Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH
Present:
Mr. Vaibhav Narang, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Yadwinder Singh, AAG, Punjab.
**** KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL) 1.
This is the second petition under Section 483 of BNSS has been invoked for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 56 dated 01.08.2024 under Sections 65(1), 351(3) of BNS, 2023 and Section 6 of POCSO Act (Amended), 2012, 2019, registered at Police Station Mohakampura, District Police Commionerate, Amritsar. 2.
The translated version of the FIR is reproduced below:- "Statement of xxxx daughter of Rajesh Sharma resident of house no. 115, street no. 7, Sunder Nagar near Shivala Mandir, Amritsar aged around 15 years 9 months, mobile 836065xxxx, 905639xxx. Made a statement I am resident of above said address and I study in 10th Class at Government Girls Senior Secondary School Shivala, Maha Singh Gate, Amritsar, my date of birth is 13.11.2008. My parents are divorced due to which I stay with my father Rajesh Sharma almost 10 months ago I met Vikas Bawa alias Ballu son of Vipan Bawa resident of Sunder Nagar, we started talking with each other over phone. Vikas usually tell me to meet me in the Hotel. In the month of February 2024 I had gone to market from house then Vikas had told me to meet at Hotel Mahal Inn, however, I denied.
Then Vikas started telling me that he would tell about our friendship to my family members then on asking of Vikas I started meeting him in the hotels where Vikas use to make physical relations with me, till now Vikas had met me 6/7 times in the hotel, last month on 06.07.2024 Vikas has taken me to Hotel Mahal Inn in room no. 103 where Vikas has developed physical relations with me and now on 23.07.2024 in room no.
me, when I denied Vikas use to threaten me that he would tell about our friendship to my family. Now I have come to know that Vikas is married and he has one child. That thereafter, I gathered courage and told my paternal aunt (Bua) xxxx alias Bintu regarding the entire incident then my Bua Bintu had brought me to you. Legal action may be taken against Vikas. I have made the statement I have heard it, it is correct. Deponent sd/- xxxx."
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, aged 29 years, has been falsely implicated in the present case on the statement made by the prosecutrix. It is submitted that both the petitioner and the complainant side reside in the same locality. The prosecutrix was thus well aware that the petitioner is a married man and father of a child. Yet, she continued communicating and interacting with the petitioner, however, be that as it may, the same does not prove the establishment of any physical relations between the two. Infact, the present FIR was lodged by the prosecutrix under duress from her family, after the brother of the complainant learned about the interaction of the petitioner with the prosecutrix. It is further submitted that the medical examination does not support the allegation of physical relations.
Reliance is placed on the testimoney of the doctor examined as PW-11, who specifically deposed that in her opinion formed after the physical examination of the prosecutrix and the DNA analysis report, there were no signs suggestive of penetration of the genitals of the prosecutrix. Moreover, it is an established fact that no human semen was obtained from any sample. As such, other than the mere uncorroborated averments, there is no cogent or credible evidence on record to substantiate the allegations levelled against the petitioner. It is submitted that the material witnesses have already been examined in the present FIR. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has already undergone an actual custody of 01 year 07 months and 08 days and has clean antecedents.
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 01 year 07 months and 08 days. The learned State counsel, on instructions from official concerned, submits that in the present case, charges were framed on 27.09.2024 and out of total 15 prosecution witnesses, 09 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.
!
"#
$
&
!
!
"
#
'
'
('
'
(
)
%
* '
+
!
!
01 year 07 months and 08 days'
,
!
-'
.
%
! ! %
/
0 ('
1
!
/
%
!
%
* '
+
/
%
*
!
0
/
!
%
0 +
!
2
)
,
!
'
+
%
% !
3
0
* 4
!
"4
$
!
" #
$
) 2!
%
0
5
!
5
6
!
67 !
0
%
& 89 +
%
%
'
89 +
%
:
6
% 8 9'
89 +
%
*
*
'
8 9 +
'
8 9 +
!
!
/
!
!
5
%
!
%
))'
,
!
!
) '
,
!
%
0
*
)'
8 9 !
'
(KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE March 12, 2026 Ritika Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No