Robin @ Ruby @ Rubin Kumar Vs State of Haryana

The instant petition has been f i led under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), fo r grant of regular bail to the petitione r , during the pendency of trial, w ho has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Inform a tion Report, as detailed

¶13

hereunder:-

¶14

Name of	FIR	Date	Section(s)	Police Station	District
Petitioner(s )	No.
ROBIN @	10	19.01.2025	137(2), 96,	Chhachhrauli	Yamuna
RUBY @			61(2) of		Nagar,
RUBIN KUMAR			BNS		Haryana

¶15

Learned counsel for the petiti o ner contends that FIR is got register e d at the instance of complain a nt-Rajesh Kumar who is father of the minor girl (victim) allegin g therein that his minor daughter ha s disappeared from the home o n 19.01.2025 at around

¶16

HIMANSHU 2025.11.13 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CRM-M-33 4 29-2025 -2-

¶18

10:00 AM a n d further suspected that it is th e petitioner only, who has taken away h is daughter. After registration o f the FIR on 19.01.2025, victim was r ecovered and thereupon state m ent under Section 183 of BNSS was r ecorded on 01.04.2025 befor e learned JMIC, Bilaspur (YNR). The said statement reads as under;-

¶19

“ Q. what is your name? A. My name is S akshi. Q. Are you n ot under pressure of anyone? A. No. Q. What have y o u to say/ A. On 19.01.20 2 5, I had gone with a boy namely Robin wit h my own free will. I like that boy, but my family members do not like him. As and whe n I used to send message and make phone c a ll to Robin, they used to beat me and use d to kill me. I, feeling harassed at the hands of my family members, had gon e with Robin. One day my family members h ad also beaten me and Robin. I want to li v e with Robin only and do not want to go a t my home. Either my family members w i ll kill me or I myself will die. No legal acti o n may be taken against Robin. All false c r imes have been levelled against him. I hav e to live with Robin only in relation.

¶20

Q. Do you wan t to say anything else? A. No. RO&AC Sd/Sd/- Sakshi Karamvir Singh Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class BILASPUR (YNR)”

¶21

Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that no offence und e r Section 96 BNS even is ma d e out, because as per the statement u n der Section 183 BNSS, having been recorded before the learned Judicial Magistrate, there is no s u ch allegation leveled by victim that s h e was forcibly taken by the pe t itioner or any allurement etc. was do n e for the purpose of having illicit physical relationship.

¶22

HIMANSHU 2025.11.13 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

CRM-M-33 4 29-2025 -3-

¶24

Therefore, p r osecution cannot draw any be n efit by alleging that the victim who j oined the company of the peti t ioner without permission of the law f ul guardian would amount t o kidnapping of minor. Moreover, v i ctim girl has not attained the a ge of majority and same would be free to depose before the Court as a nd when the stage would arrive befor e the trial Court.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitio n er further argues that the victim girl h as not been medically examin e d in the present case, as she herself c learly denied for any such exa m ination. It is also argued that since v ictim girl had joined own h e r own the company of petitioner, it is unbecoming for any person to doubt the age of any person, incl u ding the girl that she would b e the minor, unless it is specifically p ointed out by such victim g i rl while running/eloping with the boy , such as in the present case.

¶26

Another aspect cannot be left u n -noticed is that petitioner and the vict i m girl are staying in the same locality (as confirmed by learned Stat e counsel also) and apart petitio n er being 23 years of age, victim girl i s more than of the age of 17 y e ars and now has attained the age of m ajority also. Petitioner is insi d e the jail since 02 April 2025 and se e king concession for regular bail. 3. On the other hand, learned S t ate counsel submits that petitioner h a d kidnapped a minor girl wh o is yet to be examined before the C o urt. However, he does not denied that the victim girl has now attaine d the age of majority and is p r esently staying with her parents. Co m plainant Rajesh Kumar has alr e ady been examined in the Court. Addi t ionally, learned Sr.DAG, Hary a na also confirms the fact

¶27

HIMANSHU 2025.11.13 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

CRM-M-33 4 29-2025 -4-

¶29

that it was the victim girl who had clearly denied for medical examination , despite taking her to the G overnment Hospital at Yamuna Na g ar. Being asked by the Court, i t is also informed by the learned Stat e counsel that victim girl is not there in the list of witnesses, b e ing minor.

¶30

In view of the circumstances e x plained, coupled with the fact that co m plainant, who is there in the lis t of witnesses has already been examined and also, the statement made under Section 183 BNSS of victim gir l , had completely exonerated th e petitioner from any kind of allegatio n , this Court deems it appropria t e to grant the concession of bail to the petitioner in the present case

¶31

Having noticed circumstances h ereabove, petitioner once again be gi v en a chance to rehabilitate hi m self to establish in the normal cour s e of life with the other persons i n the society.

¶32

Consequently, prayer made i n the present petition is allowed . P e titioner is ordered to be releas e d on bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfa c tion of the learned trial Court/ Chie f Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa M a gistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, i f not required in any other case.

¶33

Needless to observe that the p e titioner shall not extend any threat a nd shall not influence any pr o secution witness in any manner dire c tly or indirectly.

¶34

Any of the discussion done a nd recorded here above, shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the

¶35

HIMANSHU 2025.11.13 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶36

CRM-M-33 4 29-2025 -5-

¶37

case. Theref o re, trial Court is expected to de c ide the case by taking an independent view, on the basis of evidenc e available on record, as expeditiousl y as possible, in accordance wit h law.

¶38

It is further made clear that i f , in future, petitioner is directly fou n d indulged in similar kind of ac t ivities, this order shall be deemed to b e cancelled.

¶39

9. Petition stands disposed o f.

¶40

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE

¶41

11.11.2025 himanshu

¶42

Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶43

HIMANSHU 2025.11.13 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Robin @ Ruby @ Rubin Kumar v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Robin @ Ruby @ Rubin Kumar v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Varun Vs State of Punjab and Others

Annu (Minor) Vs State of Haryana and Others

Jaswinder Saroay Vs Manish Saroay

Sukhveer Singh Vs State of Punjab

Harpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another

Amrik Singh Vs State of Punjab