Devraj v. State Of Haryana



  
     
 

!"# $%&%  !"!'"( !"# &%)% *+!, !"# &%)% -   -..

.   . 
#  /0 .% .
 .0 . 0 



  

      !!! .1,+2"2 .2"31 ,3*,+4 %
  "    # #   $%& '()*  +,-.+-+/  

(*01+21 2(+,/-0(+((,/.-0 
+- %"3  004% 5 6 # 15 5 2+--,"#  3 ## 7 $    6     # # +  " 8  (9 55## : +-++ 57 ;&  6<  7 =##"#<# 
  # 55 
(

+-++  ##    <  5:

++

+-++  55 ##   

5  < 5< # <## :9: # 

 < ## #  <   <  5<

# 75 +-++   5    

   # 

     

  5          ++

+-++ #< <   

    5 #% 75 +-++ < 55 :9:

+ 

#<

##

<

   5#   6 :9: #<5 #  

 <#5 6  5   5  ##:9: # 5

5   5

##

  5 #7  585# ₹4,00,000/- from her and kept demanding money. She gave him her mother's jewellery- a mangalsutra, six rings, earrings. In October, 2023, he switched off his mobile phone. Later, she came to know that he was in jail and that he consumed drugs. In December, 2023, he called her again and insisted on meeting her but she blocked him. On 28.05.2024, when her mother searched for her missing jewellery and made inquiries, she gathered courage and told her everything. ( Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was behind bars for the last one year. It was a case of consensual relationship turned sour. Petitioner was in relationship with the prosecutrix since the year 2022. The parties were together of their own volition.

The police had collected hotel records showing that prosecutrix had herself supplied copy of her Aadhar Card. False story of financial transactions and taking of jewellery of her mother was cooked up by the prosecutrix. The jewellery bill made over to the police pertained to the year, 2024, thus, revealing falsehood and fabrication. It was co-accused Satish, who had taken the jewellery and pledged the same for gold loan. Co-accused had already been allowed regular bail by learned Sessions Court. Further incarceration of the petitioner was not justified and petitioner deserved to be released on regular bail, particularly, when the prosecutrix was intentionally avoiding appearance before learned Trial Court to prolong petitioner's custody.

( 

/ Learned State counsel has filed status report. He opposes the prayer for regular bail on the ground of serious allegations against the petitioner who committed rape many a times on false pretext of marriage and blackmailed prosecutrix on the pretext of making her nude pictures and videos viral. It was argued that in case petitioner was released on bail, he may intimidate the witnesses or tamper with the trial.  . As per FIR version, relationship of the prosecutrix with the petitioner continued from 2022 to 2024. It is not the case of the prosecution that during investigation, any obscene picture or video of the prosecutrix has been recovered. Petitioner is behind bars for the last more than one year. Prosecutrix is a mature adult, old enough to judge the consequences of her own acts.

There is long delay in reporting the matter to the police. No witness of the prosecution has been examined till now and petitioner's fundamental right to speedy trial is jeopardized. Even though, petitioner is involved in one another case, that alone cannot be sufficient ground to decline bail to him. Coaccused Satish has already been allowed bail, though, allegations against him are less grave. In the facts and circumstances of the case, but without meaning to express any opinion on merits of the case, the petition is allowed. "   #  # #     > #         6#3;7   6.

"  5 ##  #



#      

.0 . 0

 &%)%