The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to an accused in a child sexual exploitation and abuse material case while directing the investigating officer to arrange a psychiatric or other appropriate specialist examination, if not already undertaken. The Court also sent its suggestion on medical assessment to the Home Secretaries of Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh for consideration.
Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed medical assessment of an accused facing allegations of repeatedly circulating child sexual exploitation and abuse material online, observing that investigation should also examine whether an underlying condition may contribute to the alleged conduct [Tinku v. State of Haryana].
Justice Sanjay Vashisth, in an order dated 11 November 2026, granted regular bail while leaving the criminal allegations to be decided at trial. The direction does not amount to a diagnosis, a finding of guilt or an acquittal.
The allegations before the Court
The petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita arose from FIR No. 11 of 4 February 2026 at the Cyber Crime police station, Panchkula, under Section 67B of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The State relied on 17 tipline reports allegedly linked to an Instagram account associated with the petitioner. According to the prosecution material recorded in the order, the investigation followed information from the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre concerning suspected circulation of material involving children. These remain allegations, not findings following a trial.
A direction to investigate the medical aspect
In paragraph 8, the Court noted that the State’s status report did not clarify whether a qualified specialist had examined the petitioner for any psychological or psychiatric condition relevant to the alleged behaviour. The nature and alleged repetition of the conduct made that inquiry significant in the particular circumstances.
The Court stressed the seriousness of allegations involving women and children. At the same time, it reasoned that examining possible contributing factors could help the investigating agency prevent recurrence and further victimisation.
Paragraph 10 therefore directs the investigating officer, if the exercise has not already been undertaken, to ensure an examination without further delay by a qualified psychiatrist or another appropriate medical specialist. The purpose is to identify any condition, if present, and permit recommendations for suitable medical intervention.
The order does not state that every person accused of such an offence has a mental health condition. It calls for assessment rather than assuming a medical explanation for the allegations.
Bail granted; trial remains independent
The Court recorded that the petitioner had been in custody since 16 February 2026. The custody certificate placed before it showed eight months and 23 days of incarceration, and no other criminal case was stated to be registered against him. Taking account of those circumstances and the time likely to be required for trial, the Court allowed regular bail.
Release is subject to the required bail and surety bonds and to the petitioner not being required in another case. He must neither threaten nor influence prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
Paragraph 14 expressly leaves the trial court to assess the evidence independently. Separately, paragraph 16 directs that the order be sent to the Home Secretaries of Punjab, Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh for consideration of the suggestion on medical examination. That referral is a request to examine the suggestion, not an order establishing a general compulsory assessment programme.
Case: Tinku v. State of Haryana
Number: CRM-M-32132-2026
Court and bench: Punjab and Haryana High Court; Justice Sanjay Vashisth
Decision: 11 November 2026
Outcome: Regular bail allowed; medical assessment directed if not already undertaken; petition disposed of, with trial remaining pending.
