Arjun Kumar v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-37893-2019 Date of decision:12.9.2019 ARJUN KUMAR .....Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA .....Respondent **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL ****

Present:

Mr. Anil K. Lamdharia, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Aditi Girdhar, AAG, Haryana.

**** GURVINDER SINGH GILL , J. (ORAL) 1.

The petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in case registered vide FIR No.243 dated 27.7.2019 under Sections 354, 499, 509, 201 IPC & Section 67-A of IT Act, Police Station Arya Nagar, District Rohtak. 2.

The FIR was registered at the instance of Himanshu wherein it had been alleged that his father namely Manish Grover is MLA. It is alleged that on 26.7.2019, he came to know that a photograph of a nude girl was uploaded on Facebook and it was written that the said girl was daughter of sitting BJP MLA from Rohtak. It has been further stated therein that in fact the said photograph is not of complainant's sister and has been made viral to defame his father. It is further stated therein that Deepu Vermani GAURAV SOROT 2019.09.12 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

( 2 ) CRM-M-37893-2019 had also posted the said photograph on Facebook. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he is neither named in the FIR nor there is any clinching evidence to connect him with posting of obscene photograph and that being a resident of Dehradun has nothing to do with the Haryana Politics.

4.

Opposing the petition, learned State counsel has submitted that during the course of investigation, the matter was got inquired through Cyber Cell and that information has been collected which establishes that the Facebook account of the petitioner has been used for posting the photograph in question. It has however been informed that investigation has since been concluded and challan has already been filed. 5.

Having considered rival contentions addressed before this Court and while noticing that the investigation has already been concluded, further detention of the petitioner would not serve any purpose since conclusion conclusion of trial, in of trial, in its normal course, is likely to take some time. its normal course, is likely to take some time. The petition, as The petition, as such, is accepted and it is ordered that petitioner be released on bail on his such, is accepted and it is ordered that petitioner be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, concerned. Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, concerned. ( GURVINDER SINGH GILL) 12.9.2019 JUDGE Gaurav Sorot Whether reasoned / speaking?

Yes / No Whether reportable?

Yes / No GAURAV SOROT 2019.09.12 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document