SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sameer Suman vs State Of Haryana on 12 March, 2019

CRM-M No. 32607 of 2018 (O M) -1-

CRM-M No.32607 of 2018 (O M)
Date of Decision: 12.3.2019

Sameer Suman ……..Petitioner
State of Haryana …..Respondent


Present:- Mr. Anmol Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner
Ms. Priyanka Sadar, AAG, Haryana


CRM No. 30869 of 2018 :

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed.

Documents annexed with the application, are taken on record.

Main Case :

Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 439 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case

FIR No.628 dated 10.6.2016, under Sections 328, 354(D), 376 and 506 IPC,

registered at Police Station Chandni Bagh, District Panipat.

The aforesaid FIR was registered at the behest of the complainant

with the allegations that the complainant had friendship with the petitioner and

near about 15.8.2011, she had gone with the petitioner at his house and stayed

for two days. She came back to Panipat and on the next day reached Delhi.

The petitioner booked a room in Hotel Shangrila at Delhi and when they

reached inside the room, the petitioner administered her some intoxicant

material in the cold drink due to which she became unconscious. Taking

1 of 4
18-03-2019 03:39:03 :::
CRM-M No. 32607 of 2018 (O M) -2-

advantage of her unconsciousness, the petitioner committed wrong act with her

against her wishes and prepared obscene video and took her photographs.

Petitioner threatened her that in case this fact is disclosed to anybody, the video

and photographs will be uploaded on the internet. The petitioner started black

mailing the complainant and did wrong act with her at number of times against

her wishes and prepared her obscene videos.

Being aggrieved from the atrocities and to get rid of him in order

to save her respect, the complainant registered FIR No. 83/2014 under Section

354 IPC at Panipat. However, after the registration of the aforesaid FIR, the

petitioner started threatening her to withdraw the same, otherwise he will kill

her. When the complainant did not withdraw the case, the petitioner started

sending obscene videos through whats-app to the family members of the


Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is

in custody since 17.3.2018. He is working with the Indian Air Force. On the

relevant date i.e. on 10.8.2011, the date on which it is alleged that after

administering some intoxicant material to the complainant, the petitioner

committed wrong act with her, is contrary to record. On that date, the

petitioner was on temporary duty at Air Force Station Nalia in Gujarat and it

was practically not possible for him to be in Panipat. Similarly, on 15.8.2011,

the petitioner was posted at Air Force Station, Ambala and the Air Force

Authority never permit its employee to come out from the Air Force Station. It

is further stated that the petitioner and the complainant were in relationship for

about 5 years. He further argued that as many as six opportunities were

granted to the prosecutrix but she has not come forward to get herself

2 of 4
18-03-2019 03:39:03 :::
CRM-M No. 32607 of 2018 (O M) -3-

examined in the case.

Learned State counsel on instructions from the Investigating

Officer, states that no doubt ample opportunities were given to the prosecutrix

to depose in the case, but as her address was not known to the Investigating

Officer, she could not be contacted. Now, her address has been found and she

is likely to appear before the trial Court to depose in the case on 26.3.2019.

She further submits that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in

nature, as the petitioner has not only committed sexual assault on the

complainant, but has also sent the obscene videos through whats-app to the

family members of the complainant.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Admittedly, the petitioner is in custody since 17.3.2018 and ample

opportunities have been granted to the complainant to get herself examined,

but the prosecutrix has not appeared before the trial Court. The petitioner and

the complainant were stated to be in relationship for about 5 years. The

petitioner has referred to the record of Air Force Authority to substantiate the

fact that on 10.8.2011, he was on temporary duty at Nalia Air Force Station.

Though this fact is required to be established during the trial, but as the

petitioner is in custody since 17.3.2018 and the prosecutrix has not got herself

examined, this Court finds that the petitioner deserves to be admitted on bail.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is

admitted on regular bail, subject to furnishing of his bail bonds/surety bonds to

the satisfaction of trial Court.

It is made clear that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and

shall not influence any prosecution witnesses, in any manner, directedly or

3 of 4
18-03-2019 03:39:03 :::
CRM-M No. 32607 of 2018 (O M) -4-


Needless to say that the observations made hereinabove shall not

be construed as an expression on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall

decide the case on the basis of available material


Speaking/Reasoned : Yes / No
Reportable : Yes / No

4 of 4
18-03-2019 03:39:03 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2022 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation