Trilok Podar v. State Of Haryana


223


 



 

  

 



 

  

 



 

  

 



 

 

   
   
   
  


CRM-M-19371-2025


 


 !" !#
TRILOK PODAR  $
% STATE OF HARYANA



















 & ' 

(

(

(

( 







 )*
( +
 )*
( +
 )*
( +
 )*
( +
 + 
(  
  + 
(  
  + 
(  
  + 
(  

$   
($ ,$-
.--$/
'0
$
1
& $

($
% 2
+ /
 /
$2 

($
$3 '$
+ 41/
'0
$
($
 1
3$/
'0
$
1
3&,  

55555
(  
/

6 $,7 (  
/

6 $,7 (  
/

6 $,7 (  
/

6 $,7
1.

Petitioner has filed instant 2nd petition under Section 483 of 1$2
4$8
+.$8 1
+ 1/
!9
for grant of regular bail in FIR No.54 dated 26.05.2024 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 376 (2) (n), 328, 406 and 506 of IPC registered at Police Station Women, NIT, Faridabad, District Faridabad.
2.

Facts of the case are, prosecutrix gave her statement that she is married lady having two children. She got friendly with Trilok Podar on Instagram. She met him in January, 2023. Thereafter, they started talking to each other. On 31.01.2024, he took her to Oyo Hotel, Black Pearl where he


ordered cold drink and veg biryani from outside. When she consumed cold drink, she became unconscious and when she regained consciousness she found herself naked. He took her nude photographs and prepared videos and thereafter, he started blackmailing her to viral said photographs and videos. He forced her to maintain physical relations with him against her wishes. He disclosed that he was taking divorce from his wife. Therefore, he needed money. He snatched her gold ear ring. She was under constant threat. On 22.03.2024 she came to know about her pregnancy. He provided her pills and told her forcibly to consume the same. She suffered miscarriage. Her husband also decided to take divorce from her. Her life was destroyed because of Trilok. Finally, she asked him to marry her but he refused. With these allegations, present FIR has been registered. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner raised the issue that all allegations levelled against petitioner are false. In-fact, they were in consensual relationship. There is delay in lodging the report to the police. Prosecutrix is a married lady having two children. It is denied that petitioner had prepared any video. During investigation, no such thing came into light. At present, statement of prosecutrix has been recorded in the Court on 07.01.2025 (Annexure P-3). Petitioner is ready to abide by the terms of bail order. It is submitted that his regular bail application may be allowed. 4.

Bail application is opposed by learned counsel representing State. It is conceded that on completion of investigation, challan is already presented on 03.08.2024. Chargesheet was framed on 08.10.2024 and the

9
statement of prosecutrix (Annexure P-3) has been recorded as PW1. During investigation, statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Annexure R-1). The report of DITAC is Annexure R-3. Custody certificate of petitioner is Annexure R-4.

5.

I have considered the aforesaid factual position. Prosecutrix was a married lady having two children who claimed that she fell in trap of present petitioner who sexually exploited her and also clicked her objectionable photographs. She was constantly threatened and was compelled to maintain relationship with him. After the framing of chargesheet, statement of prosecutrix is already recorded as PW1 which is Annexure P-3. Therefore, at this stage, petitioner cannot influence the prosecutrix, as her statement is already recorded. Allegations and counter allegations are matter of trial. Trial is at initial stage which may take long time. Therefore, without expressing my mind on the merits of the case, regular bail &
,'
:2
1
& $

,,;'
 '
1

$'$'

:
$, '

:,

.$  1 4
:,
: '

 '
.$2
: '


1
  
$,
.$<.2
.'4/
 $ '

=
 ' 4
3 ,, .

&&, 7/

 2/
 '
' & '

$' 4,2

;,,

















6(  
7 6(  
7 6(  
7 6(  
7



































































  




  




  




  





 !" !#
 !" !#
 !" !#
 !" !#

'
>11$
&8 4<$  '

 <
>11$
$&$:,

 <