Aakash Nayyar v. State of Haryana
Case Details
CRM-M-34662-2024 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-34662-2024 Reserved on: 13.01.2025 Pronounced on: 27.01. 2025 Aakash Nayyar ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Legal Reasoning
evidence might be prima facie sufficient to launch prosecution or to frame charges, but this Court is not considering the evidence at that stage but is analyzing it for the stage of anticipatory bail. An analysis of the above does not justify custodial interrogation or pre- trial incarceration. 8. Given the above, the penal provisions invoked coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for custodial interrogation or the pre-trial incarceration at this stage. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail. This order shall come into force from the time it is uploaded on this Court's official webpage. 9. Given above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail in the FIR captioned above subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, and if the matter is before a Court, then the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Officer/Court must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused. 10. While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following personal identification details: 1. AADHAR number 2. Passport number (If available) and when the attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk. 3. Mobile number (If available) 4. E-Mail id (If available) 11. This order is subject to the petitioner’s complying with the following terms. 12. The petitioner is directed to join the investigation within seven days of uploading this order on the official webpage of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and as and when called by the Investigator. The petitioner shall be in deemed custody for Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/ Section 23 of BSA, 2023. The petitioner shall join the SMRITI 2025.01.27 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 2 CRM-M-34662-2024 -3- investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer or any Superior Officer and shall cooperate with the investigation at all further stages as required. In the event of failure to do so, the prosecution will be open to seeking cancellation of the bail. During the investigation, the petitioner shall not be subjected to third-degree, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc. 13. The petitioner shall abide by all statutory bond conditions and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence, influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the Court. 14. In case the Investigator/Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Station arraigns another section of any penal offense in this FIR, and if the new section prescribes a maximum sentence that is not greater than the sections mentioned above, then this bail order shall be deemed to have also been passed for the newly added section(s). However, suppose the newly inserted sections prescribe a sentence exceeding the maximum sentence prescribed in the sections mentioned above; then, in that case, the Investigator/Officer-In-Charge shall give the petitioner notice of a minimum of seven days, providing an opportunity to avail the remedies available in law. 15. This bail is conditional, and the foundational condition is that if the petitioner indulges in any non-bailable offense, the State may file an application for cancellation of this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall be at liberty to cancel this bail. 16. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 17. A certified copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Petitioner can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. If the attesting officer wants to verify its authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds. 18. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any,
Arguments
Argued by: Mr. Rishab Bhandari, Advocate and Ms. Deepika Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Aashish Bishnoi, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Manik Mehta, Advocate, for the complainant. ANOOP CHITKARA, J. **** FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 116 27.06.2024 Sector-9, Ambala City, Haryana 67-A of Technology Act, 2008 Information (Amendment) 1. The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail. 2. The facts and allegations of the case are that; the victim ‘D’ informed the police that she was working as a Fashion Designer in a manufacturing unit. Petitioner was her school mate in +1 and +2. The victim ‘D’, a female, aged 25 years has informed the police that she and petitioner were class mates in +1 and +2. After that she did Fashion Designing and is working in a manufacturing unit. In sometime before the incident approximately around 2023, D again contacted the petitioner on instagram and they became friends. After that, petitioner consensually took her photographs in their intimate condition. They met regularly and had physical relations and shared each other photographs, IDs and passwords. Subsequently, petitioner pressurized her for marriage but she never wanted to get married. Because of this, the relationship estranged and they stopped. Later on, petitioner had hacked her instagram account and uploaded the intimates photographs on the instagram account, which led to the registration of the FIR. 3. Petitioner’s counsel had handed over a copy of the compromise deed which is taken on record. The compromise has been effected between the petitioner and victim D. Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant submits that matter stand compromised and complainant has no objection if bail is granted to petitioner. SMRITI 2025.01.27 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 1 CRM-M-34662-2024 -2- 4. State counsel does not say anything on the compromise but opposes the bail on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled to bail. 5. I have perused the copy of the compromise and as per which, D has voluntarily settled the matter with petitioner. 6. Given above, it is neither a case of custodial interrogation nor pre-trial incarceration. Even the complainant’s counsel does not oppose bail. 7. Pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. The
Decision
stand disposed of. 27.01, 2025 smriti (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes No. Whether reportable: SMRITI 2025.01.27 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 3