Parveen v. State Of Haryana

Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Ha aryana.

6.

Copies of orders passed by this Court while dismissing the earlier bail petitions of the petitioner have been placed on record as Annexures P-7 and P-8, a perusal of which shows that the same were dismissed by passing detailed orders. The only change in the circumstances which the petitioner has been able to point out is that the prosecutrix has since been partly examined. A perusal of the statement of the prosecutrix (partly recorded before the learned trial Court) reveals that in her examination-in-chief she has levelled specific allegations as against the petitioner and has supported the prosecution version. Simply because she has stated in her cross-examination that it was correct that she had made allegations against the petitioner on the basis of doubt, it cannot be stated that the petitioner is innocent because in the very next line, she is shown to have stated that the petitioner and Dinesh Hooda, who is proposed to be arraigned as an additional accused, were in connivance with each other. The statement recorded during examination-in-chief is also to be read.

eeping in view the discussion as made above, no substantial change in the circumstances can be stated to have been made out, at this stage. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve to be given concession of regular bail at this stage. Hence, the petition stands dismissed. 7.

Waseem Ansari