Suraj v. State Of Haryana

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh CRM-M-28695-2020 (O&M) Date of Decision:-23.9.2020 Suraj ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL Present:- Mr. Yashveer Kharab, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Karan Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Varun Singh Dhanda, Advocate for the complainant. (proceedings conducted through video conferencing) ***** GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.(Oral) 1.

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking grant of regular bail in respect of a case registered vide FIR No.262, dated 31.12.2019 at Police Station Women, District Panipat under Sections 376(2)(h) and 376(2)(n) of Indian Penal Code.

2.

The FIR in question was lodged at the instance of the victim, wherein she alleged that she was in touch with Suraj (petitioner) over telephone and that they had met about two months back in a hotel, where Suraj established physical relations with her and promised that he would marry her. It is alleged that somehow the aforesaid Suraj later refused to marry her although she being aged 19 years is interested in marrying aforesaid Suraj (petitioner). PANKAJ KAKKAR 2020.09.23 19:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

( 2 ) CRM-M-28695-2020 (O&M) 3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the FIR came to be lodged under some mistaken belief, which has now been resolved, and that the petitioner has always been and is still willing to marry the complainant and that as of now the parties have entered into a compromise and the complainant has no objection for release of the petitioner on bail. 4.

The complainant is duly represented by Mr. Varun Singh Dhanda, Advocate, who has admitted the factum of compromise and has stated that he has no objection for grant of bail to the petitioner. 5.

Although, the learned State counsel has opposed the petition, but in view of the fact that victim is a major and that the matter stands amicably resolved and the parties are willing to solemnize marriage, no useful purpose would be served by further detaining the petitioner behind bars. The petition, as such, is accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. 23.9.2020 ( Gurvinder Singh Gill ) pankaj Judge Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No PANKAJ KAKKAR 2020.09.23 19:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document