The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to a man accused of attempted rape under the POCSO Act, citing inconsistencies in witness statements, a negative forensic report, and the completion of testimony from material witnesses. The order was passed by Justice Alok Jain in the case of Anmol Singh @ Tinda v. State of Punjab and Anr.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Anmol Singh @ Tinda, sought regular bail in connection with FIR No. 190, dated October 11, 2023, registered at Police Station City-1, Sangrur. The charges against him were filed under Sections 452 (House-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint), 376 (Rape), and 511 (Attempt to commit offences) of the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
Arguments of the Petitioner
Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Mr. Sparsh Chhibber contended that the allegations were “false and fabricated.” The counsel submitted that the petitioner had been implicated solely due to his past criminal antecedents and argued that the alleged incident never took place. A key part of the petitioner’s argument was that the prosecutrix and the complainant had repeatedly changed their statements throughout the proceedings.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Alok Jain took into account several key pieces of evidence and testimony before reaching a decision. The Court had previously, on July 30, 2025, directed the State to file the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report.
The judgment noted that the FSL report concluded that “human semen and male DNA were not detected.”
Furthermore, the Court considered the testimony of a crucial witness, PW-6/ASI Sukhpal Singh. The judgment highlights a specific portion of his testimony, stating, “it is correct that it is recorded in the statement of Sharanjit Kaur that nothing happened with her daughter/victim and their honour was saved.”
The Court also took note of the custody certificate filed by the State, which indicated that the petitioner had been in custody for one year and nine months. While the certificate mentioned another case against the petitioner (FIR No. 249 dated 15.11.2022), the petitioner’s counsel presented a judgment dated December 17, 2024, showing that the petitioner had been acquitted in that case.
In its reasoning, the Court observed that since the testimony of all material witnesses had been recorded and the medical report was on record, “further incarceration of the petitioner would hinder his ability to prepare an effective defence.” The Court found no flight risk or threat to the trial, particularly as the material witnesses had already been examined. Concluding that the trial was “likely to take some time,” the judgment stated that “no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody.”
Decision
Based on these considerations, the High Court allowed the petition and ordered the release of Anmol Singh @ Tinda on bail, subject to furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court. The judgment explicitly stated that this decision was made “Without commenting upon the merits of the case.”
The bail was granted with several conditions, including that the petitioner must declare his ordinary place of residence and mobile number, not leave the country without the court’s prior permission, and abide by the terms laid out in Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
The Court further clarified that if the petitioner is “found involved in any such activity once again, the State is at liberty to promptly move an appropriate application for cancellation of bail.” The order also specified that it should not be construed as a final opinion on the merits of the case or serve as a basis for parity for any co-accused.
