Sanjeev Chaudhary v. State Of Haryana

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Decision:-6.9.2021 Sanjeev Chaudhary ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL Present:- Mr. Saurabh Dalal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Pal Singh Gill, DAG, Punjab, assisted by HC Sandeep.

Mr. Ajay Singh, Advocate for the complainant. (proceedings conducted through video conferencing) ***** GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.(Oral) 1.

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered vide FIR No.65 dated 9.2.2020 registered at Police Station Sector-53, Gurugram under Sections 323, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, wherein offence under Section 325 IPC was added later on. 2.

The FIR was lodged at the instance of Kavish Bhasin, wherein it is alleged that on 8.2.2010 when he was returning back his house, then a boy came from his back side and held him from behind while 2 other boys came, who

( 2 ) were carrying sticks, and gave beatings to him with the said sticks resulting in various injuries on his hands and legs. When he shouted, several persons came at the spot and the said boys ran away. It is alleged that he was able to recognize one of the assailants as Sanjeev Chaudhary. It is further alleged that in the said scuffle he lost his gold chain and an amount of Rs.53,000/-. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is a case where a complaint has been filed by a person, who is fiance of a lady, who was earlier in a 'live-in' relationship with the petitioner for about 4 years and that it is solely on account of jealousy that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. It has further been submitted that it is a case of simple injuries or at best a grievous injury, which is stated to be on a finger only and that, in these circumstances, the petitioner deserves the concession of anticipatory bail. 4.

Opposing the petition, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the petitioner had been stalking the complainant's fiance and that the petitioner happens to be involved in the following 4 cases and some of which are lodged by complainants, who are not at all related to the present complainant and have been lodged at different places:

(i) FIR No.137 dated 15.2.2017 registered at Police Station Kavi Nagar, District Ghaziabad under Sections 420, 120-B and 177 of Indian Penal Code;

(ii) FIR No.271 dated 13.8.2017 registered at Police Station G.T.B. Enclave, District Shahdara under Sections 323, 341, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code;

(iii) FIR No.253 dated 11.8.2018 registered at Police Station Geeta Colony, District Shahdara under Sections 376, 377, 342, 495, 354(D), 506 and 420 of Indian Penal Code; and

( 3 ) (iv) FIR No.402 dated 9.6.2013 registered at Police Station Nand Nagri, New Delhi under Sections 420, 34, 364 and 41-B of Indian Penal Code.

5.

Learned State counsel has further informed that although the petitioner has joined investigation but is not fully cooperating with the investigation and has chosen to absolutely feign ignorance about the identity of the complainant, whereas the petitioner had been sending photographs and messages on social media/messenger to the complainant telling him not to marry complainant's fiance and that, in these circumstances, he could not feign ignorance about the identity of the complainant. 6.

I have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court. 7.

Having regard to the nature of allegations and the conduct of the petitioner in not fully cooperating with the investigation and having also been involved in several other cases, no special case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. The petition is sans merit and is hereby dismissed. 6.9.2021 ( Gurvinder Singh Gill ) pankaj Judge Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No