← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/460/2024dismissed

Lovely v. State Of Punjab

2024-01-08Mrs. Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH 2024:PHHC:000764 CRM-M-460-2024 Date of decision: January 8th, 2024 Lovely .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present:

Mr. Sartaj Singh Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner.

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL , J. (ORAL) The petitioner is seeking the concession of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in case FIR No.186 dated 09.10.2023 under Sections 384, 506, 420, 120-B of the IPC registered at Police Station Salem Tabri, District Ludhiana. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the story put forth by the complainant with respect to the preparation of an obscene video of her minor daughter, subsequent blackmail, theft of gold ornaments, a laptop and `2 lakh within her house, comes across as highly unbelievable as no specific time when the alleged threats were extended or when the gold ornaments etc. were given to the petitioner, has been mentioned in the FIR in question.

3.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the FIR annexed as Annexure P-1.

4.

The petitioner allegedly prepared an obscene video involving the minor daughter of the complainant and coerced her into theft within her home, to maintain silence. Allegedly, not only did the theft involve gold ornaments of the complainant, which were then PUNEET SACHDEVA 2024.01.08 15:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document.

Chandigarh

CRM-M-460-2024 -2given to the petitioner but the minor, after being threatened, was made to part with her laptop and a sum of `2 lakh from the cupboard of her mother under duress fearing the threat by the accused to make her obscene video viral.

5.

Considering the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve the extraordinary concession of anticipatory bail.

6.

The petition, therefore, stands dismissed.

7.

However, it is made clear that anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

January 8th, 2024 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

No PUNEET SACHDEVA 2024.01.08 15:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document.

Chandigarh