CRM-M/44458/2026 of ARUN Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER on 27 August 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-44458-2026

Date of decision :27.08.2026 ARUN

... Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Ankur Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kuljinder Singh Dhindsa, Asstt. A.G., Haryana. **** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. The prayer in the present petition under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 is for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.164 dated 30.08.2024 registered under Sections 115(2), 308(2), 316(2) and 351(3) of BNS (Sections 377, 328, 379 and 506 IPC) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 at Police Station Hassanpur, District Palwal.

2. The present FIR came to be registered at the instance of Shahid Hussain S/o Majid Khan and the same reads as under:- “To, SHO, Police Station Hasanpur, District Palwal, regarding legal action for luring a minor child for withdrawing money from his account, drugged with marijuana and beer, and raped. Sir, I am Shahid Hussain, son of Majid Khan, a permanent resident of Pirgarhi, District Palwal. I had gone to Palwal to get my young child treated. On August 28, 2024, Rahul, son of Asgar, Aamir, son of Nasira, Mausam, son of Jakam, Arun, son of Chanderpal, and others lured my son Haaris away from JITESH LAL

home. Arun, Aamir, and Rahul withdrew 1,820 rupees from my son's Aadhaar card. Aamir Aamir and Rahul gave my son marijuana and beer, and Arun and Mausam raped him. I returned from Palwal around 11:00 but did not find my son Haaris there. Later, when he returned home around 01:00, he was in critical condition. My son told me all this today. Therefore, I request you Sir to take the strictest possible legal action. My son is 16 and a half years old. -SD- SHAHID Applicant Shahid Hussain son of Majid.”

3. The counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. As per the MLR and the DNA analysis of the clothes and swabs, no occurrence as alleged has taken place. No common poison/drug could be detected in the body of the victim relating to administration of any intoxicating substance. The complainant/Shahid Hussain has been examined as PW-1, the victim Haaris as PW-2 and the mother of the victim Smt. Sahana as PW-3. The depositions of these witnesses are discrepant in material particulars. In fact, much prior to the present FIR, the father of the petitioner, namely, Chandarpal had got registered an FIR No. 255 dated 07.09.2023 under Sections 148, 149, 323, 452 and 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against Sakir alias Dhappadi, Afsar, Asir and others who are closely related to the present complainant side. The instant FIR is a counter-blast to the said FIR. As the petitioner is in custody since 02.05.2025 but only 06 of the 27 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far, the Trial of the present case is not likely to be JITESH LAL

concluded anytime soon and therefore, he is entitled to the concession of bail.

4. The counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are grave. The material witnesses have all supported the case of the prosecution. The discrepancies, if any, are a matter of adjudication during the course of the Trial. The petitioner had sought the concession of bail, which application was firstly withdrawn on 12.12.2025 (Annexure P-10) and thereafter on 19.05.2026 (Annexure P-11). When the second bail application of the petitioner was argued and withdrawn, the evidence of the material witnesses had already been recorded. Therefore, there is no change in circumstances entitling the petitioner to the grant of bail and thus, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. A bare reading of the FIR would reveal that the allegations against the petitioner are of committing sodomy on the victim. The victim and his parents have supported the case of the prosecution. The petitioner had sought the concession of bail on two prior occasions and when the Court was not inclined to grant the concession of bail to him, he has withdrawn his petitions. In fact, the second bail application of the petitioner was withdrawn on 19.05.2026 (Annexure P-11) after the evidence had already been recorded. Therefore, there are no material changes in the circumstances entitling the petitioner to the concession as prayed for. JITESH LAL

7. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petition and the same stands dismissed.

8. However, the observations made hereinabove are only for the purposes of deciding this bail petition and the Trial Court is free to adjudicate upon the matter on the basis of the evidence led before it uninfluenced by any such observations made herein.

(JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE 27.08.2026 JITESH Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No JITESH LAL