Punjab-Haryana High Court
Xxxxxxxxxxxx vs Xxxxxxxxxxxx on 10 April, 2026
CRA-S-882-2026 (O&M) -1-
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT
CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-509-2026(O&M)
Reserved on: 09.04.2026
Pronounced on: 10.04.2026
Uploaded on: 10.04.2026
RAHUL MAJHI ...Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL
Argued by: Mr. Raunak Gupta, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Birender Bikram Attrey, Addl. AG Haryana.
Mr. Sanyam Khetarpal, Advocate
for respondent No. 2.
****
SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The appellant assails order dated 20.01.2026 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court, Faridabad vide which his application for bail in case bearing FIR No. 69 dated 04.06.2025 under Section 140(3) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 6 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Sections 3/33/89 of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Women Central, Faridabad, was dismissed.
2. The Facts:
Proecutrix aged 16 years stated that her father worked as a sweeper in Faridabad while her mother was a mid day meal worker. She passed Class 9 from Government School in Faridabad and had known Rahul son of Arvind for AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.04.10 15:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-882-2026 (O&M) -2- about 04 years. Rahul was in her school and they became friends. He lured her from school in the year 2023 regarding which a case was already registered against him. In January 2024, after release of Rahul on bail, she started chatting with him again. On 30.05.2025, Rahul asked her to come with him. On May 31, 2025 at about 2:30-3:00 AM, she walked a short distance, when Rahul arrived on a black motorcycle and took her for a ride, whereafter he took her to his house, where he had repeated sex. She stayed in the house of Rahul untill afternoon on 31.05.2025. There was no one in his house. In the evening, her family members saw her with Rahul and brought her back home.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that prosecutrix and appellant were in relationship for the last 05 years, being school mates. It was a case of love affair and prosecutrix had gone with the appellant of her own. She was compelled by her family members to lodge the false FIR. In her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS, she did not incriminate the appellant. Medical evidence did not show any external injury on the person of prosecutrix, nor any semen was detected in the FSL examination. Prosecutrix and her mother had since been examined during the course of trial. In her cross- examination, prosecutrix denied that accused raped her and insulted her regarding her caste. Learned counsel thus prays that appellant, who was in judicial custody for the last more than 10 months, deserved to be enlarged on regular bail.
4. Learned State counsel has filed custody certificate and opposed the appeal on the ground of serious nature of allegations against the appellant, who AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.04.10 15:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-882-2026 (O&M) -3- was accused of aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon the minor prosecutrix.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant while referring to judgment of this Court in CRM-M-23877-2020 titled Pardeep Khan Vs. State of Punjab, decided on 25.08.2020 has also opposed the appeal submitting that consent of the minor was immaterial in the case of kidnapping of a minor child.
6. During the course of investigation, statement of the prosecutrix under Section 183 BNSS was recorded. She stated before the Magistrate that she filed the case under pressure of her family; that she was thrown out of the house by them and that Rahul did not commit any wrong act. Further, that no action be taken against him. Her statement and that of her mother has been recorded during the course of trial. Though, the effect of the contradictory versions during investigation and during trial would be adjudged at the time of final adjudication of the case, on appreciation of evidence, the fact remains that appellant is behind bars for the last more than 10 months. Since material witnesses have been examined, there is no prospect of the appellant influencing them. Appellant has no criminal history. There is no other case registered against him. There is no reason to suspect that he would evade the process of law. In the previous case got registered by the prosecutrix, appellant has been acquitted.
7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, but without commenting on merits, the appeal is allowed. Order dated 20.01.2026 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court, Faridabad is set aside. Appellant is directed to be released on regular bail on furnishing requisite bail bonds/surety AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.04.10 15:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-882-2026 (O&M) -4- bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.
(SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL)
APRIL 10, 2026 JUDGE
Ajay Goswami
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
AJAY GOSWAMI
2026.04.10 15:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document