High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/21544/2020allowed

Amarjit Singh v. State Of Haryana And Others

2020-08-13Mr. Justice Harnaresh Singh Gill2 pages

CRM-M No. 21544 of 2020 -1In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CRM-M No. 21544 of 2020 Date of Decision: 13.8.2020 Amarjit Singh ......Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL

Present:

Mr. H.S.Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Pardeep Prakash Chahar, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Bikram Chaudhary, Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3.

**** HARNARESH SINGH GILL , J. (ORAL) Case is being taken up for hearing through video conferencing. The petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No. 218 dated 27.5.2020 under Sections 363, 366-A IPC and Sections 4 and 12 of Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 registered at Police Station Sadar Ambala, District Ambala.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in custody since 06.6.2020. He further submits that the petitioner has solemnized marriage with respondent No. 3-Shaily on 26.5.2020 and their marriage certificate has been annexed as Annexure P-4. Thereafter the petitioner and respondent No. 3 approached this Court by way of CRWP No. 3234 of 2020 seeking protection to their life and liberty and vide order dated 29.5.2020 (Annexure P-5) protection was granted to them. Learned counsel further submits that even at this stage, Shaily-respondent No. 3 is GURPREET SINGH 2020.08.13 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chadigarh residing with the parents of the petitioner. He further submits that the matter

CRM-M No. 21544 of 2020 -2has been compromised between complainant Santosh Rani-respondent No. 2, who is the mother of Shaily-respondent No. 3 and Mukhtiar Singh, who is the father of the petitioner. As per said compromise dated 5.6.2020 (Annexure P-6) and affidavit of complainant Santosh Rani dated 29.7.2020 (Annexure P-7) the parties have settled their dispute and the complainant undertook that she will not press any action against the petitioner. Learned State counsel, who is assisted by learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3, have not disputed the factum of compromise effected between the parties. Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 also states that respondent No. 3-Shaily has been residing with the parents of the petitioner.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In the present case, compromise has been effected between the parties on 5.6.2020 and victim Shaily-respondent No. 3 has been residing at her matrimonial home. The petitioner has been in custody since 06.6.2020. The trial will take time to conclude. No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars.

Without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

(HARNARESH SINGH GILL) JUDGE August 13, 2020 Gurpreet Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No GURPREET SINGH 2020.08.13 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chadigarh