Criminal Misc. No. M-33343 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-33343 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision : December 12, 2011 Anil Kumar Verma ....Petitioner versus State of Haryana ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Sachin Rai Vaid, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. CS Bakshi, Addl. AG Haryana Mr. Dirinder Chopra, Advocate for the complainant L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Criminal Misc. No. 68017 of 2011 The application is allowed and Annexures P/10 to P/14 are taken on record. Criminal Misc. No. M-33343 of 2011 Accused Anil Kumar Verma has filed this petition for anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 361 dated 13.10.2011, under sections 420, 376, 504, 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Naraingarh, District Ambala. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. According to the prosecution version, petitioner committed rape on the prosecutrix on the pretext of getting her husband appointed to a Criminal Misc. No. M-33343 of 2011(O&M) -2- government job by doing some Tantrik Vidya. The prosecutrix also gave birth to a girl child from the lions of the petitioner. The petitioner started blackmailing her and induced her father to part with Rs 5 lacs on the pretext that some treasure would be dug out in his house. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the prosecutrix had also moved application dated 08.8.2011, Annexure P/14 making similar allegations but thereafter made statement Annexure P/2 on 26.8.2011 alleging that she had made the said complaint out of anger and pressure of her family and motorcycle had been returned by the petitioner. It was stated in the said statement that nothing had been done to her by the petitioner nor any money had been taken by the petitioner from complainant's father. Affidavit Annexure P/3 dated 11.8.2011 was also affirmed by the complainant stating interalia that no rape had been committed on her and she did not want any action against the petitioner on the complaint moved by her. Compromise Annexure P/4 dated 26.8.2011 was also effected by the complainant. It has been stated in the compromise that the petitioner has returned the motorcycle to the complainant party and has also paid Rs 30,000/- to the complainant and now there was no transaction left between the parties. This compromise was allegedly signed by the complainant as well as her husband. Learned State counsel on instructions from SI Jagtar Singh contended that instant FIR was registered on the order of Superintendent of Police on subsequent application dated 10.10.2011 moved by the prosecutrix. Counsel for the complainant contended that documents Criminal Misc. No. M-33343 of 2011(O&M) -3- Annexures P/2 to P/4 were obtained from the complainant under pressure by HC Pardeep Rana. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Counsel for the complainant admitted that no such plea has been taken by the complainant in the FIR that documents Annexures P/2 to P/4 were obtained under pressure by HC Pardeep Rana. In fact, there is no reference at all in the instant FIR to earlier complaint Annexure P/14 made by the complainant making similar allegations nor there is any reference to documents Annexures P/2 to P/4 in the instant FIR. Keeping in the view all the circumstances of the case mentioned hereinbefore but without meaning to express any opinion on merits of the case, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is allowed. In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer subject to the conditions specified in section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. The petitioner shall join the investigation as and when required by the police. Presently, the petitioner is directed to join investigation on 22.12.2011 at 10.00 AM and continue to do so as and when required by the police. ( L.N. Mittal ) December 12, 2011 Judge 'dalbir'