Amit Kumar Sardana v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM-M No. 761 of 2022 (O & M) Date of Decision : 18.1.2023 Amit Kumar Sardana ..... Petitioner versus State of Haryana ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA

Present:

Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pranshul Dhull, Advocate, for the petitioner Ms. Mahima Yashpal, DAG, Haryana Mr. Sanjay Jain, Advocate, for the complainant --- TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA J. (ORAL):

This is a petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.283 dated 4.8.2021 under Sections 354, 354-A, 354-C, 354-D, 365, 376 (2)(n), 376 (2)(f), 450, 509 and 120-B IPC (Sections 377, 451, 506 IPC and Section 10 of POCSO Act, 2012 added later on), registered at Police Station City Mandi Dabwali, District Sirsa. The allegations against the petitioner are that he blackmailed the complainant and committed rape upon her continuously over a long period of time. The first incident of sexual harassment reported by the complainant is of June 2016. As per the complaint as well as statement of the complainant recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she continuously was meeting the petitioner upto November 2020, and during that period the alleged incidents took place.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the relationship between the petitioner and the complainant was consensual. To ASHWANI KUMAR 2023.01.18 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M No. 761 of 2022 (O & M) -2substantiate the fact, he has referred to the whats-app chats dated 5.9.2020 between the parties, (Annexure P-4), as well as the hotel bookings of dated 6.9.2016, 11.9.2016 and 21.9.2016 (Annexure P-3), when both of them stayed together at Chandigarh. It was only when their relations were strained that the present FIR was lodged.

Learned State counsel, on instructions from SI Kamal Singh, opposes the grant of regular bail to the petitioner. However, she is not in a position to dispute the aforesaid facts.

The petitioner is in custody since 15.8.2021. Thirty witnesses still remain to be examined, though the complainant has been examined. In this background, when the material witness/complainant has already been examined and trial of the case is not likely to conclude in near future, no useful purpose will be served by confining the petitioner to custody. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

The pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.

Anything recorded/observed hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on merits of the case. (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE 18.1.2023 Ashwani Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No ASHWANI KUMAR 2023.01.18 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document