Anil Kumar @ Vicky v. State Of Punjab

CRM-M-23031-2021 [ 1 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-23031-2021 Date of Decision: 15.06.2021 Anil Kumar @ Vicky.............................................Petitioner

Versus

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

(through video conferencing)

Present:

Mr. Dheeraj Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Luvinder Sofat, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Amandeep S. Manaise, Advocate for the complainant.

...

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (Oral) Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 55 dated 12.03.2021 under Sections 376, 354, 506, 120-B IPC (offence under Section 341 IPC and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 added later on) registered at Police Station City Gurdaspur, District Gurdaspur.

Contends that the prosecutrix and the petitioner had been in a relationship for a long time and both thus wanted to solemnize their marriage. However, since the family of the prosecutrix was averse to their relationship the instant FIR came to be registered against him after pressurizing the prosecutrix. Learned counsel in support of his contention RUPINDER KAUR 2021.06.16 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-23031-2021 [ 2 ] has invited the attention of this court to Annexure P2 which is purportedly a compromise effected between the brother of the prosecutrix and the petitioner which clearly reveals that both the petitioner and the prosecutrix had been in a long term relationship. He has also invited the attention of this court to Annexure P3 which are messages exchanged between the prosecutrix and the petitioner and some photographs of both of them taken during the time they were in a relationship.

Heard.

A perusal of the FIR in question reveals that there are serious allegations levelled against the petitioner of luring a minor girl i.e. prosecutrix and thereafter taking her to different hotels where she was continuously violated. Not only this, a perusal of the FIR also reveals that the petitioner aged 35 years clicked obscene and objectionable photographs of the minor girl and thereafter threatened to make the pictures viral over the internet.

In the light of the aforementioned serious allegations against the petitioner, he does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. Petition is dismissed.

( MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) 15.06.2021 JUDGE rupi Note: Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable:

Yes / No RUPINDER KAUR 2021.06.16 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document