Amandeep @ Amandeep Singh v. State Of Haryana




IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH (214) CRM-M-27705-2026 Date of Decision: 21.05.2026 AMANDEEP @ AMANDEEP SINGH ......Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH

Present:

Mr. Mayank Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Brijesh Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

**** KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL) 1.

The present second petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 439 of Cr.P.C.) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 53 dated 20.05.2025 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of IPC (corresponding Sections 64(2)(m) & 351 of BNS), registered at Police Station Women Sirsa, District Sirsa. The first bail petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 19.03.2026.

2.

The translated version of the FIR is reproduced below:- "Statement of xxxx daughter of Jayaram, resident of Kalyan Nagar, Begu Road, Sirsa, aged 30 years, mobile number 85710-5xxxx, stated that I live at the above-mentioned address and I work as a nurse in Bhanwar Hospital, Sirsa. I am divorced, my husband, Rakesh son of Hardev Lal, resident of Ghigtania, had divorced me in the year 2019. I have one son, aged about 8 years, who is with me. I have been working as a nurse in Bhanwar Hospital since 2021. Amandeep son of Prem Singh, resident of Neja Dela Kalan, also worked in Bhanwar Hospital. I came in contact with Amandeep and we became friends. I told Amandeep everything about me that I have one son and that I am divorced. Amandeep said to me that I am ready to marry you and I am also ready to take responsibility of the child. I believed his words, and Amandeep, by giving a false promise of marriage, in the month of October 2021 around 12:00 noon at Mehak Garden PVR, did wrong acts with me, and again by giving the excuse of second marriage, kept doing

 wrong acts with me. Whenever I talked to Amandeep for marriage, Amandeep used to put things off. on date 12.01.3025 at around 11:30 AM, Amandeep did wrong acts with me at Mehak Garden. I had also gone to Amandeep's house then Amandeep pushed me out of the house and said that If you come again to my house, then I will kill you. I also gave a complaint against Amandeep in Ding police station, but Amandeep compromised with me but did not marry me and told me that he would not marry me because he had only taken pleasure with me and he will not marry girl like me. Amandeep made a false promise of marriage to me and did wrong acts with me again and again.. Today, I have come to you with my mother xxxx and have given my statement. I request that legal action be taken against Amandeep, son of Prem Singh, resident of Neja Dela Kalan. I have given you my statement, after reading it and it is correct. SD/- xxxx SD/- Sadhana Mittal LAC Sirsa 19-5-25 Attested SD/- Seema ASI PS Women Dt XXXXXXXXXXXXXX" 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, aged about 30 years, has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of the statement of the complainant, alleging that the petitioner established physical relations with her under the false promise of marriage. It is submitted that the petitioner and the complainant were in fact in a consensual relationship over a period of three years, while they were employed at the same hospital. Subsequently certain irreconcilable differences arose between the two, whereupon the complainant got lodged the present FIR on the basis of sweeping & omnibus allegations, to substantiate which there is no cogent evidence on record. Moreover, even the complainant in her testimony before the learned Trial Court did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the copy of her testimony, annexed as Annexure P-6.

  



 

!

 



 !

4.

Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He states that the petitioner was actively involved in the commission of the offence. He has

 filed custody certificate in Court today and the same is taken on record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone an actual custody of

. He, on instructions from the investigating officer concerned, submits that in the present case, charges were framed on 13.10.2025 and out of total 13 prosecution witnesses, 03 have been examined till date. Learned State counsel further submits that in view of the serious allegations against the petitioner, he is not entitled to the concession of regular bail.

5.

Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

6.



 $

%&

'



 

 



 $ (

 )






  

    

               

     

  

   

   

         

         

    



  

  

  

   

         

     

   





  





                  

    

     

     

  



  

 

 ! 

   

    

   

 



 

   

 !          

 

 

  

  

 

             

      

  
  
   

   



       

   "    



   

   



  

   

  



 



  

 

       

  #   

  
!

 $ 

# 







*!!!

+ 

* 

*  ( $

,  !

 

!

# # 

  !

-



 



$$

 .!

/

   (

$



#

  

(









 #



$ 







 #

 #



 #

0 





 



1 2   

  



  0 

( 

 

 !

 $ #

 ( !

 



, 


#  

$ 

  /



 $

$ 

 



 

1

#

$ (









$

$ 

 



$ 0 !

 0





  

(

, 





 1

 #



 

#

0

 

 

 (

$



1



  

 3





- ( 

 



 # 



    



$

 !



  # (

 





 (

 





4



, 5#



%5

'

  

 " #

   
$  

 !

3



( #



 

1

6

  #



 



6

7







 

 
78



 1 

(



) 9:

(  (



 !

9:

(  ;

7

( 9:!

9:

(





, #   

,  !

9$:

 



(





(

  !

% 9$:

  

 

 # 





6  (









 







  (

-



$

#



 

$



!

!

-

 $

$





1 

 #





, 





*!



 

 9:# 

  (KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE May 21, 2026 Ritika Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No