Surender Kumar @ Sikander vs State Of Himachal Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 422 HP

                                     1




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
                               Cr.MP(M) No. 10 of 2021




                                                                          .
                               Date of Decision : 7th January, 2021





Surender Kumar @ Sikander                                       ...Petitioner.





                               Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh                                      ...Respondent.

Coram:





The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
For the petitioner       :    Mr. Vijay Kumar Arora and Ms. Godawari, Advocate.

For the respondent       :    Mr. Ram Lal Thakur, Assistant Advocate General, for

                              the State.

       COURT PROCEEDINGS CONVENED THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE



Anoop Chitkara, Judge (oral)

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. Vijay Kumar Arora, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Ram Lal Thakur, learned Assistant Advocate General, for the respondent/ State.

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

3. Mr. Vijay Kumar Arora, 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.

(Anoop Chitkara), Judge.

January 7, 2021 (KS)