Neeraj v. State Of Haryana

CRM-M-22956 of 2023 -12023:PHHC:068341

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-22956-2023 Date of Decision: 11.05.2023 Neeraj .... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana .... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

Present:

Mr. Nipun Vashisht, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Ashok Singh Chaudhary, Addl. A.G., Haryana ***** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J (ORAL) This is a petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for seeking regular bail in FIR No.15 dated 01.03.2023 registered under Section 201, 328, 354-D, 376, 506 IPC registered at Police Station Women, Narnaul, Haryana.

The petitioner had been arrested in the case registered by the prosecutrix under Sections 201, 328, 354-D, 376, 506 IPC. It is the case of the petitioner that the prosecutrix was having intimate relationship with him and both of them have stayed in hotel for more than once which has been found in the investigation which the Police has conducted and thereafter after that FIR was lodged. Documents have been placed on record. In support of such assertion, learned counsel also submits that there are whats app chatting since 2022 between the petitioner and the prosecutrix which means that they were having relations including physical relation. RAMAN KUMAR I am the author of this document PDF SIGNER DEMO VERSION 12.05.2023 14:37

CRM-M-22956 of 2023 -22023:PHHC:068341 Photographs have also been annexed.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant submits that the petitioner had molest the prosecutrix to get her a job in HTET and therefore she became friendly with him. However, the petitioner had misused the friendship and developed sexual relationship with her. He has also black mailed her and made different photographs . Learned counsel for the State also supported the submission of the counsel for the prosecutrix.

I have considered the submissions and pursued the documents which have come on record and without commenting on merits of the case I found there have been relations between the prosecutrix and the petitioner and that both are major. Accordingly, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to satisfaction of the trial Court concerned on furnishing personal surety bond to the tune of Rs.20,000/- and a surety in the like amount.

Accordingly, the petitioner stands allowed.

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) 11.05.2023 JUDGE Raman Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No