Punjab and Haryana High Court: Avneesh Jhingan, J. dismissed the petition on the grounds discussed below.
The facts of the case are such that the prosecutrix alleged that her father-in-law after administering her with tablets which made her unconscious did a wrong act, clicked her photographs and video recorded her. Thereafter, he blackmailed her. A statement of the prosecutrix before the Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 Criminal Procedure Code i.e. CrPC was recorded. Two bail applications filed before the trial Court by the petitioner were dismissed. FIR was registered under Sections 328, 376 and 506 of the Penal Code, 1860 i.e. IPC and he was thereby arrested. Two bail applications were filed before the Trial Court by the petition which was dismissed. The instant petition was filed under Section 439 CrPC for grant of regular bail.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prosecutrix has not supported the allegations while deposing before the Court.
Counsel for the respondents submitted that opposes the bail stating that the allegations are serious. The prosecutrix has supported the allegations in the statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC.
The Court observed that the issue with regard to the contradiction of statement under Section 164 CrPC and deposition before the Court would be a subject matter of trial. The Court further observed that the nature of allegations made by the prosecutrix, especially the fact that the objectionable video and photographs were clicked were very serious. A U-turn is apparent.
The Court thus held that the prosecutrix not supporting the allegations in a deposition before the Court is not enough to grant bail.
In view of the above, petition was dismissed.[Subhash Chander v. State of Haryana, CRM-M No.12704 of 2021, decided on 25-03-2021]
Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.