Punjab-Haryana High Court
Baljeet Bidlan vs State Of Haryana on 30 September, 2022
CRM-M-37489-2022 -1-
204
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-37489-2022
Date of decision : 30.09.2022
Baljeet Bidlan
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr. H.S. Randhawa, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Dhruv Sihag, AAG, Haryana.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
Prayer in the present petition is for grant of anticipatory bail
to the petitioner in FIR No.143 dated 06.07.2022 registered under
Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 43,
66 and 66(B) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 at Police Station
Udyog Vihar, District Gurugram.
On 24.08.2022, this Court had passed the following order:-
"Inter alia contends that the petitioner is a lady and
has been falsely implicated in the present case in order to
wreak vengeance against her as she was the former
employee and the said fact can be discerned from the fact
that it has been alleged in the FIR that she was working as
an employee in the company since 27.03.2020 and her
1 of 5
employment was terminated on 31.08.2021 whereas, as a
matter of fact the petitioner had joined the company on
03.12.2018 and had resigned from the company on
02.08.2011 and to substantiate the same, has referred to
the e-mails annexed along with the present petition. It is
further submitted that the petitioner was one of the best
performing employees of the company and the company
had even offered the post of Manager Recruitment to her
so as to ensure that the petitioner stays with the company
and the said offer was declined by the petitioner on
12.08.2021 and thereafter, the petitioner received an e-
mail with a post resignation acceptance form so as to
facilitate her resignation from the company. It is stated
that the fact that the petitioner was the top performing
employee of the company could be discerned from the e-
mail sent to her along with her self appraisal data
wherein she was given an annual increment of 24% of
salary on account of her performance and it is only when
the petitioner did not accede to the demands of the
company for reward, every attempt was made to dissuade
the petitioner from leaving the company and after the
petitioner had tendered her resignation and rejected the
offer of promotion, 5 days prior to her leaving, show
cause notice was served upon her on 27.08.2021 and
response was furnished to the same by the petitioner. It is
submitted that the petitioner is now sought to be dragged
and roped into the present FIR on account of some
information which came to the knowledge of the
complainant on 25.03.2022 and even in the FIR, the
allegation of sharing information and making service
agreement are against the co-accused and not against the
petitioner and in fact the petitioner had left the company
2 of 5
in the year 2021 and has been nominated as an accused
after almost one year. It is submitted that the question of
the petitioner colluding and conniving with other co-
accused moreso, Chetan Lal does not arise as the present
petitioner had given a complaint of harassment against
the said Cheten Lal and it is on account of the said
complaint, Chetan Lal was terminated from the company
and thus, the question of the complainant colluding
Chetan Lal does not even arise. It is further submitted that
the provision of Section 43 of the Information Technology
Act (in short "I.T.Act"), which is one of the offences under
which the present FIR was registered, does not provide
any punishment and only prescribes penalty and Sections
66 and 66B of the I.T. Act stipulate a maximum sentence
of 3 years and are bailable in view of Section 77B of the
I.T. Act. It is further submitted that Section 420 IPC is not
made out against the present petitioner inasmuch as the
petitioner has not made any representation or induced to
any person and at any rate, since the said offence
prescribes maximum sentence of 7 years, mandatory
notice under Section 41A of Cr.P.C. has not been issued
by the investigating agency and for the said proposition,
learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the
judgments of the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar vs.
State of Bihar & Anr. reported as 2014(3) RCR (Cr) 527
and Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation & Anr., SLP (Crl.) no.5191 of 2021. It is
further submitted that the petitioner has a minor daughter
and has no criminal antecedents and the entire case is
based on documentary evidence and thus, the custodial
interrogation of the petitioner is not required.
Notice of motion.
3 of 5
On asking of the Court, Mr.Dhruv Sihag, AAG,
Haryana, appears and accepts notice on behalf of the
State. Mr. Anuj Dewan, Advocate, appears on behalf of
the complainant.
Adjourned to 05.09.2022.
In the meantime, in the event of arrest, the petitioner
is ordered to be released on interim bail subject to her
furnishing personal bonds and surety to the satisfaction of
Arresting / Investigating Officer. However, the petitioner
shall join the investigation as and when called upon to do
so and shall abide by the conditions as provided under
Section 438(2) Cr.P.C."
Thereafter, on 05.09.2022, the following order was passed:-
"Learned State counsel has pointed out that
although the petitioner has joined investigation but is not
required for further investigation.
Adjourned to 30.09.2022.
In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to again
join investigation on 13.09.2022 at 11:00 a.m. in terms of
the order passed by this court on 24.08.2022.
Interim to continue."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in
pursuance of the abovesaid orders dated 24.08.2022 and 05.09.2022, the
petitioner has joined the investigation.
Learned counsel for the State, has submitted that the
petitioner has joined the investigation and is not required for any further
custodial interrogation.
Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances
moreso, the facts which have been noticed in abovesaid order dated
4 of 5
24.08.2022 and also the fact that the petitioner has joined the
investigation and is not required for further custodial interrogation, the
present petition is allowed and the interim order dated 24.08.2022 is
ordered to be made absolute.
However, nothing stated above shall be construed as an
expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would
proceed independently of the observations made in the present case
which are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail
application.
30.09.2022 (VIKAS BAHL)
Pawan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
5 of 5
