CRA-S/1652/2026 of ASHISH Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 10 September 2026

1. The present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant against the impugned order dated 01.04.2026 whereby his application for regular bail has since been dismissed in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report as detailed hereinunder:- FIR No. Dated Sections Police Station

10.12.2025 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 115, 127(2), 351(3), 64(1) of BNS, 2023 (corresponding Sections 323, 342, 506, 376(1) IPC) and Section 238(a) of BNS (Section 201 of IPS) added later on Civil Line, Sonipat RENU BALA

2. The above-numbered criminal appeal had been registered on the basis of an application moved by the victim/complainant alleging that on 24.01.2025, she came out of her home and went with the appellant. She had come into contact with him in September, 2023. The appellant enticed her away and brought her to a room in Zudio Mall at the upper portion of ICICI Bank and committed a forcible act upon her. Thereafter, when she raised an objection that she would tell about the occurrence to her parents, the appellant assured her that he would solemnize marriage with her and kept her under fear and threat. She did not complain to her parents and solemnized marriage with the appellant against the wishes of her parents. Then, the appellant and the victim stayed in Village Pokharwas in District Bhiwani at the house of the elder sister of the appellant. She was given beatings by the sister of the appellant and was also abused. Thereafter, the neighbours informed the police by making a call. The police asked her to file a complaint, but the victim was kept under fear and threat by the appellant and his sister. She was brought to the Court, where one advocate, namely, Sunil Prajapat, told her that she would be implicated in a case if she filed a complaint against the appellant and his sister. The advocate also told her about the documents concerning the live-in relationship. Thereafter, the appellant and the victim came to Village Kumaspur. She was given beatings and was abused by the appellant, and even the mother of the appellant tried to kill her by strangulating her. However, she was rescued by the appellant. The sister of the appellant also gave her beatings and all her documents were burnt. The appellant committed a forcible act with her when she was a minor. At the time of commission of the offence against the victim, the elder brother of the appellant, Rajesh, his sisters, Manisha and Sonia, and his mother, Birmati, were also with him. She was also not allowed to leave the house and was kept confined. She was RENU BALA

asked to do the household work as if she had been brought as a servant. She was harassed and mentally tortured on the point of her caste. She prayed for taking legal action against the appellant.

3. After registration of the FIR, investigation was conducted and the appellant was arrested. After completion of the investigation, the challan against the appellant was presented.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case and that he has not committed any offence. He further submits that the complainant/victim solemnized marriage with the appellant and marital discord has been given the shape of an offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. There were no physical relations between the complainant/victim and the appellant when the victim was a minor. The statement of the victim was recorded. He prayed that the appellant be released on regular bail.

5. Learned State counsel opposes the bail application on the ground that, in view of the seriousness of the allegations levelled against the appellant, he is not entitled to the concession of regular bail.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.

7. It has come on record that the statement of the complainant/victim has since been recorded by the learned trial Court. The allegations against the appellant are subject matter of trial. . The conclusion of trial is likely to take some time. Therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the appellant in further custody. As such, sufficient mitigating circumstances are made out to extend the concession of regular bail to the appellant.

8. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed, and the appellant is ordered to be RENU BALA

released on regular bail on furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate, subject to the following conditions:-

(i) The appellant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial Court and shall deposit the passport in the trial Court.

(ii) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

(iii) The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

(iv) The appellant will appear before the trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific order of Court.

(v) The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which, he is an accused, or for commission of which he is suspected of.

(vi) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly coerce, induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner.

(vii) The appellant shall not in any manner misuse his liberty.

(viii) The appellant shall furnish his address and mobile number to the Trial Court forthwith and shall not change the same till the conclusion of the trial and in case for any reason, the appellant seeks to change any of the aforesaid, the same shall be done only with prior intimation to the learned Trial Court, stating the reason for the same.

(ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other condition, as deemed appropriate while releasing the appellant.

9. It is made clear that in case there is any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as granted to the appellant by this order. RENU BALA

10. In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of the aforesaid observations. 10.09.2026 (RAMESH KUMARI) renubala

JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No RENU BALA