Ramandeep vs State Of Haryana

Kirti Singh, J

The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been invoked for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 91 dated 13.10.2024 under Sections 376(2)(n), 509 IPC and Section 67A of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, registered at Police Station Women Sirsa, District Sirsa.

The translated version of the FIR is reproduced below:-

"To, The Superintendent Police, Sirsa Subject: Sirsa. For taking legal action against Raman son of Sh. Vinod of Alupur District Kumar, resident Mansa (Punjab) Mobile No.76961-72272 Sir, the applicant submits as under: 1. That the applicant is a permanent resident of village Mangala Tehsil and District Sirsa and is a law abiding peace loving citizen. 2. That the applicant was doing printing work in M.D. Bio Call Private Limited Company in the year 2020. The applicant met the said accused in the said company in the year 2021. The said accused was with me there and was doing printing work. The applicant had a good relationship with the accused and they became good friends. After some time, the accused took the applicant in his sweet talk and told her that he has started liking her and wants to marry her. Being that they worked together in the same the sweet a man, company and was good applicant got swayed by the accused's talk. 3. That after this, the accused started talking to applicant on phone and the applicant and accused would often go out for outings. One day, accused, finding an the opportunity, tried to forcefully have physical relations with the applicant, to which The applicant refused to do all this before marriage, to which he said that he would marry her and he That after that the 4. loved her. accused started harassing the applicant mentally and repeatedly lured her with his sweet talk and once in the month of October, 2021, he took her to City Inn Hotel Sirsa by giving false promise of marriage and there he developed physical relations with the applicant. 5. That after that the said accused developed physical relations with the applicant several times. Whenever the applicant asked him to marry her, he kept on evading and kept on giving false promises that he will talk to his family and tell her. 6. That in the year 2023, when the applicant repeatedly asked the accused to get her married, the said accused called the applicant to Deep Hotel Dabwali Road, Sirsa and asked her to come there and talk, on which the applicant went there on the call of the accused. Even at made that time the accused did not listen to the applicant and forcefully physical relations with the applicant again and later when the applicant asked him to get married, the accused clearly refused and left the hotel. 7. That even after that the applicant requested the accused many times that you should not do this to me but the intentions of the accused were not good and one day he clearly threatened the applicant that I only wanted to have fun and I have done that, someone else will marry you. Saying this, he stopped talking to the applicant. 8. That when the applicant repeatedly tried to meet the accused and talk about marriage, he started threatening to make viral her obscene video/photo which the accused had secretly made when they met and started saying that I will make this video and photo viral if you ask me again about marriage, I will defame you in such a way that not only I but no one will say yes to marry you. 9. That after that when the applicant asked the above accused not to do so and said that I have family and to my to meet your told everything want they family regarding their marriage, then the above accused got angry and sent the obscene photos and videos of the applicant to the cousin brother, real brother and other family members of the applicant by creating an ID on Snapchat app in the name of the applicant in his phone and also the above started making the obscene photos of the applicant viral by writing the numbers of her brothers and writing call girl. Due to such shameful acts of his, the applicant has completely defamed and many people are calling on the numbers of the applicant's brothers which the accused has made viral. 10. That the above accused has made the life of the applicant hell and due to the above accused has become it difficult for the applicant and her family to live in the society. 11. That the accused is still making the videos and photos oft he applicant viral. So that he should be stopped as soon as possible. Therefore, by submitting application to you, it is requested that strict legal action should be taken against the said accused and a case should be registered and his phone and all his IDs from which he has leaked the video and photos should be confiscated."

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the petitioner, now 28 years old, has been falsely implicated in the present case by the complainant. In fact, the petitioner and the complainant, who are adults, remained in a long standing consensual relationship for about three years, during which no such complaint was filed. There is no cogent evidence on record to substantiate the allegations levelled against the petitioner. He further submits that the material witnesses already stand examined. The petitioner has undergone an actual custody of 01 year, 07 months and 10 days and there is no other criminal case registered against him.

Per contra, learned State counsel as well as the learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner was actively involved in the commission of the offence. Learned State counsel 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 01 year, 07 months and 10 days. The learned State counsel, on instructions from the investigating officer concerned, submits that in the present case, charges were framed on 12.3.2025 and out of total 18 prosecution witnesses, 13 have been examined till date. It is submitted that in view of the serious allegations against the petitioner, he is not entitled to the concession of regular bail.

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

Before proceeding, a gainful reference can be made to the observations passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, relevant paras whereof reads thus:

"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.

From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, "necessity" is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances."

Reverting to the case in hand, it is borne out from the record that charges came to be framed on 12.3.2025. Only 13 out of 18 cited prosecution witnesses have been examined till date. The petitioner has already remained in actual custody for a period of 01 year, 07 months and 10 days. It is also not disputed that he has no criminal antecedents and is not involved in any other case.

While the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations leveled against the petitioner, and the culpability, if any, would be tested and determined on the touchstone of evidence during the course of trial, the parameters governing the grant of bail necessitate a balanced consideration of the nature of accusation, the stage of the trial, the antecedents of the accused, and the likelihood of his absconding or influencing the course of justice.

Presently, no material has been placed on record to suggest that the petitioner poses a flight risk or that his release would impede the fair conduct of the trial, particularly when the material witnesses stand examined. Therefore, upon taking into account all the considerations stated hereinbefore, and without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case lest it may prejudice the trial, this Court is of the opinion that the continued detention of the petitioner, in the backdrop of the pace of the proceedings and the substantial period of incarceration already undergone, would not advance the cause of justice. The guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which includes the right to a speedy trial, obliges the Court to ensure that pre-trial incarceration does not assume a punitive character. The prolonged incarceration, without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future, would also run contrary to the settled legal principle that 'bail is the rule and jail is the exception', as reaffirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2018) 3 SCC 22.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed, and to ensure that the interests of justice are adequately safeguarded, the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail upon furnishing of adequate bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate, subject to the following terms and conditions:-

(i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

(ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s).

(iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused of, or for commission of which he is suspected.

(v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.

It is reiterated that the observations made in hereinabove are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail petition, and must not be construed as a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.