Ravinder v. State Of Haryana

Crl. Misc. No. M-44239 of 2017 -1In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M-44239 of 2017 Date of Decision: 12.03.2018 Ravinder ......Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANITA CHAUDHRY

Present:

Mr. P.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Mahima Yashpal, AAG, Haryana.

**** ANITA CHAUDHRY, J The petitioner is seeking regular bail in FIR No. 81 dated 29.5.2017 registered at Police Station Women, Jhajjar under Sections 354(D)(2), 363, 366, 376(2)(N), 450, 506, 201 IPC and Sections 66(E) and 67(A) of Information Technology Act.

Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is in custody since 4.6.2017 and on the last date, the case was adjourned to enable the complainant to make her statement. It was urged that the complainant had lodged similar cases against other men and then she had accepted money and had turned hostile at the trial. The counsel refers to Annexure P-2 and has also placed another FIR registered in 2016. It was urged that in all the complaints, the allegations made by her were that some drug was administered and video had been prepared. The counsel refers to the cross-examination effected on the complainant and urges that the complainant had married four times and the allegation made in the FIR was that there was a promise by the petitioner to marry her. Gurpreet Singh Bhatia 2018.03.13 09:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh

Crl. Misc. No. M-44239 of 2017 -2State counsel submits that they are not aware of the FIR registered in Jhajjar in 2016. A copy of the same has been handed over to the State counsel.

The statement of the victim has been recorded. The complainant is a married woman and the allegations are that the petitioner had promised to marry her after she got a divorce from her husband. The petitioner started visiting her home. The complainant later learnt that the petitioner was married and he started blackmailing her and threatened to upload her photographs. The witness had admitted that she had earlier lodged a complaint against Pardeep.

Without commenting anything on the merits of the case and considering the circumstances and the fact that the statement of the complainant has been recorded, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing local surety and adequate bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate. (ANITA CHAUDHRY) JUDGE March 12, 2018 Gurpreet Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

No Gurpreet Singh Bhatia 2018.03.13 09:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh