PRADEEP DAHIYA Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No.575/2014 registered under Sections 354/506/509/354D IPC at PS Nangloi. Status report is on record. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties including the counsel for the complainant and have examined the file.

(2.) Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner urged that false and motivated allegations have been levelled against the petitioner by the complainant. Both of them had met together in a training programme. They became friendly and it resulted in an 'affair'. After the training, finished on 04.06.2013, both of them continued to meet each other regularly; they used to have long conversations on mobile phones. Subsequently, the complainant insisted the petitioner to divorce his wife and to marry her; he declined to do so. Subsequently, the complainant's marriage was fixed with one Pritam Singh against her wishes. The petitioner did not interact with the complainant since 12.12.2013 due to her engagement. Later on the petitioner was contacted by Pritam Singh to know about his relationship with the complainant. He met Pritam Singh on various occasions and tried to remove his doubts. At his request, he even forwarded photographs of the complainant. On the request of the complainant's father, the petitioner gave in writing before the police officials at PS Kanjhawala that he did not have any relations with the complainant to enable Pritam Singh to pacify.

(3.) Learned senior counsel further urged that in the earlier bail application bearing No.2283/2014 before this Court, interim protection was granted to the petitioner. He had joined the investigation. A charge-sheet has been filed in June, 2015. Due to inadvertence, it was informed that since the bail has been granted by the Court below, the said bail application be dismissed as withdrawn. The correct position was that the petitioner had got bail in FIR No.60/2015.