LAXMI NARAIN MITTAL v. STATE OF HARYANA
Court: High Court of Punjab and Haryana
Bench: MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Punjab and Haryana judgment dated 2025-08-19. LAXMI NARAIN MITTAL v. STATE OF HARYANA. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 221 CRM-M-34130-2025 Date of decision : 19. 08. 2025 Laxmi Narain Mittal ........ Petitioner versus State of Haryana ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present: Mr. R. S. Rai, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ribhav Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Priyanka Sadar, Senior D. A. G. , Haryana. Mr. S. K. Tripathi, Advocate for the complainant. ***** NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL) 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 142 dated 22. 04. 2025 registered under Sections 140(3), 127(2), 127(3), 96, 64(1) & 99 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Sections 4, 6, 8 & 17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 and Sections 4(1), 5(1)(A)(1) & 6(1)(B) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 at Police Station Dabua, District Faridabad. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 22. 04.
2025, father of the victim made a complaint to the police alleging therein that on 17. 04. 2025 at around 4:00 P. M. , his daughter, who is 15 years old, left home without telling anybody in the house. He has tried to search her everywhere but in vain. On the basis of the said complaint, the formal FIR was registered. During investigation, the victim was recovered on 23. 04. 2025. She was got medico legally examined and her statement under Section 183 of BNSS, 2023 was got recorded. On the basis of her statement, co-accused Balraj @ Bittu and Mamta Devi were arrested. Thereafter, call details of co-accused Mamta Devi were obtained and on the basis of the said call details, the petitioner was arrested. 3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and has been implicated on the basis of call details of co-accused Mamta Devi.
The petitioner has no connection or nexus with the alleged offence. The only allegation against the petitioner is that he was in touch with co-accused Mamta Devi. He further submits that in her statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, 2023, the prosecutrix/victim did not name the petitioner and even in the Test Identification Parade held on 16. 05. 2025, the petitioner was not identified by her. 4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is behind the bars since 12. 05. 2025 and not involved in any other case. He also submits that investigation in the present case is complete; challan stands presented; charges have been farmed and out of total 24 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far. The trial is likely to take a considerable time to conclude and therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner behind the bars. 5.
Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, could not dispute the abovesaid factual position. She has also filed custody certificate dated 18. 08. 2025 in the Court which is taken on record. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner is behind the bars since more than last 03 months and he is not involved in any other case. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Keeping in view the custody period of the petitioner which is 03 months and 06 days and the facts that in the Test Identification Parade held on 16. 05.
2025, the petitioner was not identified by the prosecutrix/victim; investigation has been completed; challan has been presented; charges have been framed and out of total 24 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far; the petitioner is not involved in any other case and the trial may take a considerable time to conclude, therefore, the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail during trial on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court. 8. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. 9. However, anything observed hereinabove shall not be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and is meant for the purpose of deciding the present petition only. 19. 08. 2025 (NAMIT KUMAR) kothiyal JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No
Source: High Court of Punjab and Haryana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.