High CourtsSingle Bench(2021) 01 SHI CK 0172

Ashu Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 7 January 2021

HON’BLE JUDGES
Anoop Chitkara, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (M) No.27 Of 2021

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

19 paragraphs · 353 words

Anoop Chitkara, J

1.

For alluring the husband of the complainant to the house of co-accused Krishna Devi and other accused, and after that creating a situation there

that he indulges in sexual intercourse with one of the lady, which they videographed and then subsequently used it as honey-trap to extract the money,

the petitioner, who is under arrest for committing an offence punishable under Sections 364A, 388, 342, 506, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, in FIR

No.298 of 2020 dated 21.11.2020, registered at Police Station, Bhuntar, District Kullu, H.P, has come up before this Court, seeking regular bail under

Section 439 of the Cr.PC.

2.

I have heard Mr. Manmohan Mekta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Ram Lal Thakur, learned Assistant Advocate General,

for the respondent/ State.

3.

Mr. Manmohan Mekta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that in the present FIR, one of the accused, Krishna Devi was granted

bail, as such, the petitioner is also entitled to bail on the similar grounds.

4.

Mr. Ram Lal Thakur, learned Assistant Advocate General, submits that co-accused, Krishna Devi was a female and for females, Code of Criminal

Procedure is lenient, when it comes to bail and moreover on that date, the investigation being at the initial stage, complete facts were also not placed

before this Court, therefore, her bail was considered and allowed.

5.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further argues that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been roped in the present case.

6.

After arguing for a consideration time, learned counsel for the petitioner, seeks permission to withdraw the present petition with liberty to file the

same afresh. Request not opposed. Therefore, permission granted. Liberty reserved. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn,

reserving liberty to file afresh as and when the petitioner deems it fit.

As far as, co-accused Krishna Devi is concerned, the State may consider for filing appropriate application for cancellation of the bail granted to her,

on the ground that at that time investigation was at the initial stage and as such her role was not that clear.