Vinit Pandey v. State Of Haryana

Crl. Misc. No. M-11823 of 2018 -1In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M-11823 of 2018 Date of Decision: 05.4.2018 Vinit Pandey ......Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANITA CHAUDHRY

Present:

Mr. Puneet Kakkar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Mahima Yashpal, AAG, Haryana assisted by ASI Dinesh Kumar.

**** ANITA CHAUDHRY, J Through the instant petition, the petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 104 dated 25.2.2018, registered under Sections 306, 506, 509 IPC, Police Station Sector-31, Faridabad. Ankita was engaged to Deepak. The allegations against the petitioner are that he called on the mobile phone of Deepak and made allegations against Ankita concerning her character. He also threatened Ankita that if she married Deepak, he would get Deepak picked up and would not spare her and she would be killed. The complainant had mentioned that her daughter committed suicide in the house on account of fear in case she married Deepak.

Counsel for the petitioner contends that he had two phones which had been handed over to the police and he had not made any call and Gurpreet Singh Bhatia 2018.04.06 16:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh

Crl. Misc. No. M-11823 of 2018 -2had been falsely named in the FIR.

State counsel urges that the call record of the mobile phone used by the girl was collected and it was found that the petitioner was contacting Ankita earlier as well and there is a call recording and it was a conference call between the petitioner, Deepak, Ankita and Manish and the petitioner had threatened the girl. The State counsel states that they would need voice samples. State counsel also submits that the petitioner was blackmailing the girl and this fact had been disclosed by Ankita to Deepak. The counsel also submits that the petitioner had been playing hide and seek and had not handed over the phone from which calls were made. There is a call recording which is a conference call. Considering the seriousness of the allegations, it is not a case where anticipatory bail should be allowed.

The petition is dismissed.

(ANITA CHAUDHRY) JUDGE April 05, 2018 Gurpreet Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

No Gurpreet Singh Bhatia 2018.04.06 16:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh