215 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-1380-2025 (O&M)

Reserved on 08.01.2026 Pronounced on 09.01.2026 Uploaded on 09.01.2026 PARDEEP @ PARDEEP KUMAR ...PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Argued by: Mr. Omkar Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Kanica Sachdeva, DAG, Haryana.

***

SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL J.

1. Petitioner seeks regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.04, dated 03.01.2024, under Sections 323, 363, 366-A and 376 Indian Penal Code, Police Station Madlauda, District Panipat, Haryana. This is his first petition for regular bail.

2. On 03.01.2024, father of the prosecutrix moved a written complaint in the Police Station stating that his daughter ‘M’ aged 20 years left home without informing anyone and her whereabouts were unknown. On the complaint, FIR No.04 dated 03.01.2024, under Section 346 IPC was registered. During investigation, statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded and the offences under Sections 363, 366-A were invoked. On further investigation, on 13.01.2024, on statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the prosecutrix, offence under Section 376 IPC was added.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner was named by the prosecutrix in her first statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she did not level any allegation of rape. Later on, she improved her version considerably and alleged rape on false promise of marriage. He submits that even if the allegations in the subsequent statement of the prosecutrix were accepted as true, no offence under Section 376 IPC was made out, petitioner being a married man, a fact which was always well known to the prosecutrix as per her deposition in the Court. Further, there was no medical evidence to corroborate the charge of rape. Prosecutrix had been examined during the course of trial and petitioner was in custody for the last more than 2 years. Therefore, he deserved to be enlarged on regular bail.

4. Police report along with custody certificate dated 28.10.2025 has been filed by State of Haryana which are taken on record. Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for regular bail and submits that in her supplementary statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., prosecutrix stated that petitioner raped her on 24.12.2023, on 02.01.2024 and 08.01.2024.

5. Statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded before learned JMIC, Panipat on 10.01.2024 does not incriminate the petitioner. No allegation of rape were levelled against the petitioner in the first instance. Later on, police invoked Section 376 IPC on supplementary statement of the prosecutrix. Statement of the prosecutrix has been recorded in the course of trial. Though, the effect of the contradictory statements is to be gauged by learned trial Court on conclusion of trial, there is now no prospect of the petitioner influencing the prosecutrix or tampering with the evidence. Petitioner is in custody for the last 2 years. His antecedents are clean and he is not involved in any other case. Conclusion of trial may take some more time. In the facts and circumstances of the case but without expressing any opinion on merits, 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. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL)

09.01.2026 JUDGE

Sumit Singla