Nikhil Yadav v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Feb 2025CRM-M/5158/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRM-M-5158-2025; Nikhil Yadav v. State of Haryana; regular bail allowed; second bail petition; Section 483 BNSS 2023; FIR No. 07 dated 06.02.2024, Police Station Women, Gurugram; Section 376 D IPC rape; delayed FIR registration almost one year; Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement Annexure P-5; Sakshi Yadav intoxicating drink; nude photos viral threat, Farm House; no medical evidence; undertrial custody 10 months; arrested 03.04.2024; only 04 of 19 prosecution witnesses examined; bail on ground of protracted trial; custody certificate 03.02.2025; PW-2 victim, PW-3 father; Nidhi Gupta; Punjab and Haryana High Court; 04.02.2025.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail: petitioner Nikhil Yadav to be released upon furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. ¶¶23

Nikhil Yadav Vs State of Haryana — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Regular bail: petitioner Nikhil Yadav to be released upon furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

¶¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether petitioner Nikhil Yadav should be released on regular bail in case FIR No. 07 dated 06.02.2024 registered under Section 376 D IPC at Police Station Women, Gurugram. +1 more

¶¶17

Court's answer

Present petition allowed; petitioner Nikhil Yadav ordered released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

¶¶24

Ratio / Principle

Bail considered without commenting on merits, keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, expressly including the petitioner's custody period of 10 months as an undertrial.

¶¶23

Key takeaways

Material witnesses have already been examined, yet only 04 of the total 19 prosecution witnesses have been examined by the learned trial Court so far.ratio¶¶23
Conclusion of the trial will take considerable time, and no useful purpose would be served by further detention of the petitioner.ratio¶¶23
Caution recorded that nothing stated above shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh (Nidhi Gupta, J., oral), decision dated 04.02.2025, CRM-M-5158-2025 — Second petition under S. 483 BNSS 2023 by Nikhil Yadav for regular bail in FIR No. 07 dated 06.02.2024 (Annexure P-1), Police Station Women, Gurugram, under Section 376 D IPC. PETITION ALLOWED: bail granted on totality of circumstances, viz. (a) 10 months' custody undergone as an undertrial (arrested 03.04.2024); (b) material witnesses already examined; and (c) only 04 of 19 prosecution witnesses examined so far, so that conclusion of trial will take considerable time and no useful purpose would be served by further detention. Court expressly clarified that nothing stated is an expression of opinion on merits. Background canvassed: FIR founded on the victim's own complaint; incident date per FIR 06.04.2023 against registration on 06.02.2024 (near one-year delay urged, unexplained); main allegations per FIR against complainant's friend Sakshi Yadav (intoxicating/alcoholic drink); absence of medical corroboration urged; victim's S. 164 Cr.P.C. statement (Annexure P-5), her trial testimony as PW-2 and that of her father as PW-3 relied on by the State in opposition; 15 of 19 witnesses pending.

¶1

CRM-M-5158-2025 -1-

¶2

IN THE H I GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H ARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 209 CR M -M-5158-2025

¶3

Dat e of Decision: 04.02.2025

¶4

Nikhil Ya d av .… Petitioner

¶5

Versus State of H a ryana .... Respondent

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

¶7

Present: - Mr. Ravinder Malik (Ravi), A dvocate for the petitioner.

¶8

Mr. Dushyant Saharan, AAG, Haryana.

¶9

NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

¶10

The petitioner has filed the p r esent 2^nd petition under 483 of the Bharat i ya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2 023, for grant of regular bail in case FI R No. 07 dated 06.02.2024 ( A nnexure P-1) registered under Section 37 6 D IPC at Police Station Wome n , Gurugram.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petit i oner submits that the aforesaid FIR (Annexure P-1) was registered on the basis of a complaint moved by the victim h erself wherein utterly vague a n d general allegations have been made agai n st the petitioner.

¶12

It is first and foremost submit t ed that as per the FIR, the date of incident is 06.04.2023, whereas the FI R (Annexure P-1) was registered only on 0 6 .02.2024. There is no expla n ation on record regarding the extraordin a ry and inordinate delay of al m ost one year in registration of the FIR.

¶13

Further, it is submitted that i n the FIR the main allegations are agains t the friend of the complainant / victim, namely, Sakshi Yadav, who is sta t ed to have administered some i n toxicating drink to the victim.

¶14

RISHU KATARIA 2025.02.04 18:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶15

CRM-M-5158-2025 -2-

¶16

The alleg a tions in the FIR that the pet i tioner along with some other persons ha d committed rape upon the vict i m are utterly false. Even in her statement r ecorded under Section 164 C r .P.C. (Annexure P-5), nothing specific h a s been stated by the victim and it has only been reiterated that the afores a id Sakshi Yadav had given so m e alcoholic drink to the victim upon whic h she lost her consciousness an d when the victim regained her conscious n ess she felt pain in her priva t e parts besides bleeding. It is further sta t ed that ‘thereafter Ravi Yadav and Nikhil Yadav had meet me in the Far m House itself and had stated t hat if told to anyone then said that your n ude photos will got viral on th e internet and had threatened to kill’. Ther e fore, it is submitted that the m ain allegations in the FIR are against th e friend of the victim, namely, S akshi Yadav and the petitioner has nothin g to do with the same.

¶17

It is also stated that ther e is no medical evidence to corroborat e the story put forth by the co m plainant/victim. The petitioner was arrest e d by the police on 03.04.2024 and since then he has been in custody. T h us, it is prayed that he may be r eleased on regular bail.

¶18

Per Contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of regular b a il to the petitioner and submits that the v i ctim in her statement record e d under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Annexure P-5) and also in her testimony b efore the learned trial Court as PW-2, has supported the prosecution case a nd reiterated the allegations of rape against the petitioner and other co- a ccused of the petitioner. Even father of t he victim as PW-3 before th e learned trial Court has also supported t he prosecution case. On instru c tions, learned counsel for State

¶19

RISHU KATARIA 2025.02.04 18:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶20

CRM-M-5158-2025 -3-

¶21

has infor m ed that out of total 19 prosecu t ion witnesses, 04 have already been exam i ned so far; and 15 witnesses re m ain to be examined.

¶22

Learned counsel for the Stat e files custody certificate dated 03.02.202 5 which is taken on record, as p e r which the petitioner has been in custody as an undertrial for a period of 1 0 months. I have heard learned counsel f or the parties.

¶23

Without commenting on meri t s of the case, however, keeping in view th e totality of the facts and circu m stances of the case, including: (a) custod y period of 10 months unde r gone by the petitioner as an undertrial; (b) that material witnesses alre a dy stand examined; and (c) out of total 19 prosecution witnesses, only 04 witnesses have been examined by the lea r ned trial Court, so far, therefo r e, conclusion of trial will take considerable time, and no useful purpose would be served by further detention o f the petitioner. Thus, the prese n t petition is allowed.

¶24

The petitioner-Nikhil Yadav S /o Ashok Kumar, is ordered to be release d on regular bail on his furni s hing bail/surety bonds to the satisfactio n of the trial Court/Chief Judic i al Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, concerned.

¶25

However, it is made clear th a t nothing stated above shall be construed a s an expression of opinion on t h e merits of the case.

¶26

04.02.2025 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) rishu JUDGE

¶27

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

¶28

Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶29

RISHU KATARIA 2025.02.04 18:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
Second petition under S. 483 BNSS 2023 for regular bail in case FIR No. 07 dated 06.02.2024 (Annexure P-1), registered under Section 376 D IPC at Police Station Women, Gurugram.¶¶10
Prior proceeding
As per the FIR, date of incident is 06.04.2023 but the FIR (Annexure P-1) was registered only on 06.02.2024; petitioner's counsel submitted there is no explanation on record for the extraordinary and inordinate delay of almost one year.¶¶12
Prior proceeding
Per petitioner's counsel, the main allegations in the FIR are against the friend of the complainant/victim, Sakshi Yadav, stated to have administered some intoxicating drink to the victim.¶¶13
Prior proceeding
Per petitioner's counsel, in the victim's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Annexure P-5) nothing specific is stated; it is only reiterated that Sakshi Yadav gave an alcoholic drink, upon which the victim lost consciousness and on regaining consciousness felt pain in private parts besides bleeding.¶¶16
Prior proceeding
Quoted from the victim's Section 164 statement (per ¶16): she stated that thereafter Ravi Yadav and Nikhil Yadav met her at the Farm House and threatened that if she told anyone her nude photos would go viral on the internet, and threatened to kill her.¶¶16
Prior proceeding
Petitioner's counsel submitted there is no medical evidence to corroborate the story put forth by the complainant/victim; petitioner arrested by police on 03.04.2024 and in custody since then.¶¶17
Prior proceeding
Per State counsel, the victim in her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement (Annexure P-5) and in her testimony before the learned trial Court as PW-2 supported the prosecution case and reiterated rape allegations against the petitioner and his co-accused.¶¶18
Prior proceeding
Father of the victim, appearing as PW-3 before the learned trial Court, also supported the prosecution case (per State counsel).¶¶18
Prior proceeding
Trial status reported by State counsel: out of total 19 prosecution witnesses, 04 examined so far; 15 remain to be examined.¶¶21
Prior proceeding
State counsel filed custody certificate dated 03.02.2025, taken on record, showing the petitioner in custody as an undertrial for a period of 10 months.¶¶22

Nikhil Yadav v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nikhil Yadav 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

Ram Rattan Mittal Vs Improvement Trust Barnala and Ors.

Rampat Vs Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and Others

Alim and Others Vs Lalit Kumar and Another

Lakhwinder Singh Vs Gur Iqbal Singh

Barinder Mahajan Vs Santokh Singh and Anr.

Kuldeep Kaur and Another Vs Sarabjit Singh and Others