IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

204 CRM-M-43129-2025 (O&M)

Date of Order:04.11.2025 JATIN ..PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA ..RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Mr. Kushager Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Kanica Sachdeva, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Shubham Kaushik, Advocate for complainant.

SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL , JUDGE

1. Petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No. 1 dated 05.01.2024 under Section 376(2)(n), 420, 506 of Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Women Hisar, District Hisar. This is his first petition for regular bail. Section 376(3), 467, 468 and 471 of IPC were added in the FIR, during investigation.

2. Complainant alleged that her minor daughter “S” started talking with Jatin son of Rajbir, resident of Village Sahlawas Jhajjar on Instagram and said Jatin continuously raped her for the last 7-8 months. The sexual abuse started from 18.07.2024. Her daughter was taken to a hotel near bus stand and Jatin gave her a phone with SIM. He used aadhar card of one Jyoti who was an adult and sexually abused her daughter in a hotel near bus stand on 15.08.2023, 18.09.2023, 06.10.2023, 22.11.2023, 29.11.2023. Thereafter, on 01.12.2023 and 01.01.2024, he sexually abused her in a hotel near Bhiwani Railway Station. Every time, he gave her daughter contraceptive pills and threatened to upload her obscene pictures on social media, if she disclosed the incident. On 01.01.2024, when her daughter came home at about 06:00 PM, she made inquiries, upon which she started crying. On 02.01.2024, on further inquiry, she told the whole truth and her elder brother spoke to Jatin on phone. Jatin threatened to commit suicide and to implicate their entire family, whereafter he switched off his phone number.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia submits that petitioner was 21 years of age with clean antecedents and had been falsely implicated in the case. There was inordinate delay of 4 months in registration of the FIR which was not explained. He argued that in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., prosecutrix exonerated the petitioner and conceded that she was in a consensual relationship with him and wanted to marry him. It was argued that no injury was detected on medical examination of the prosecutrix. Petitioner was in custody in the case for the last 1 year and 9 months. In support of his prayer for regular bail, learned counsel relied upon Deshraj @ Musa Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another

2024 SCC Online SC 2709

4. Learned State counsel and learned counsel for complainant opposed the prayer for regular bail arguing that prosecutrix was yet to be examined in the case and in case of release on bail, petitioner was likely to tamper with evidence. They submitted that report of DNA examination was incriminating. Apart from the allegations of aggravated penetrative sexual assault, petitioner used false aadhar card of another girl to book hotel and sexually abuse the minor victim.

5. Petitioner is in judicial custody in the case for the last 1 year, 9 months and 25 days. Prosecutrix, when examined under Section 164 Cr.P.C., has not levelled any allegations of rape or penetrative sexual assault. Subsequently, her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded again wherein she claimed that she had consensual relations with the petitioner. No witness has been examined as yet and the trial is likely to take long. Although, the effect of the contradictory statements made by the prosecutrix would be determined at the time of conclusion of trial, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the view that a clear case of release of petitioner on regular bail is made out. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

6. All the pending miscellaneous appl