IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (106+214)

CRM-47601-2025 in/and CRM-M-40583-2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision:-02.12.2025 HIMANSHU ……Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ……Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN ****

Present: Mr. Vivek Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Swati Batra, Senior DAG, Haryana.

None for respondent No. 2.

****

ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed inter alia praying for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 95 dated 23.03.2025, under Sections 351(3), 64(2)(m) and 77 of the BNS, 2023, registered at Police Station Sector 5, District Panchkula.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the consensual relationship turned sour, which led to the lodging of the present FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the exchange of photographs were consensual and on the asking of the complainant herself rather she had also been sending photographs on her own accord. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the material witnesses have been examined and the petitioner has been in custody for the last more than seven months.

3. Learned State counsel has also filed the custody certificate of the petitioner in Court today, which is taken on record, according to which the petitioner has already undergone 07 months and 19 days as on 01.12.2025 and submits that there are cogent evidence in the form of WhatsApp chats whereby, the petitioner has been blackmailing the complainant for money on the strength of the obscene photographs which were in his possession. The bank account also demonstrates that the complainant had remitted a sum of Rs. 80,000/- approximately on various occasions which the counsel for the petitioner could not justify, except for vague averment that they were in small denomination of Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 3,000/- and the petitioner had also sent back the money on multiple occasions to the complainant.

4. Although the State counsel has pointed out that the other private witnesses are yet to be examined but could not deny the fact that the testimony of victim has been completed.

5. In light of the above and considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than seven months and the fact that the material witnesses have been examined. Further, whether any offence was committed or it was a consensual relationship will be looked into by the learned trial Court by considering the entire evidence coupled with the fact that the trial is likely to take time, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody, hence, the petitioner is entitled to the grant of the concession of regular bail.

6. Without commenting upon the merits of the case, the present petition stands allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail if not required in any other case on furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned. The petitioner shall, however, be released on the following conditions:

i. The petitioner shall declare his ordinary place of residence and the mobile number used by him.

ii. The petitioner will not switch off his mobile and in case of any technical glitch, he has to give an alternate number, which will be available in his absence.

iii. The petitioner will mark his presence before the SHO concerned, after every 15 days and in case the SHO refuses to mark his presence, he is permitted to make an application before the Illaqa Magistrate, concerned.

iv. The petitioner will not leave the country without the prior permission of the Court, for which he will submit the copy of his passport also. However, in case the petitioner does not possess a passport, then he shall file an undertaking to the said effect before being released.

The petitioner shall abide by the terms and conditions as imposed in addition to Section 483 of BNSS, 2023.

7. However, nothing stated above shall be construed as a final expression of