VEENA VERMA Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT. Veena Verma, moved this application praying for cancellation of bail allowed to respondent No.2, Sanjay Chaudhari vide order dated 5.6. 2009 passed by Sri Suresh Kumar Srivastava, learned Sessions Judge, Budaun and to reject his bail bonds in Case Crime No. 04/2009, under Sections 386, 511, 506, 509 I.P.C and 67 Information Technology Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Badaun.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned A.G.A on behalf of respondent No.1, State of U.P.

(3.) LEARNED A.G.A on behalf of State of U.P. supported the case of the applicant thereby contending that the respondent No.2 is harassing, torturing and blackmailing the applicant by different ways for which the applicant had lodged three First Information Reports against the accused. The accused frequently used to call the applicant even in odd hours of night, threatening her for dire consequence and sending her indecent MMS and threatening to run her indecent video even on all crossing of District Badaun. After being released on bail, the accused has misused the liberty of bail and again indulged himself in committing similar type of offence regarding which the case crime No. 1517 of 2009 was registered against him. In case crime No. 2062 of 2008 for the offence under sections 420, 352, 506, 354, 294 I.P.C, the charge sheet against the accused was submitted for the offence under sections 294 I.P.C,. In fact on the pretext of sanctioning loan to the husband of the applicant, the accused had developed sexual relationship with the applicant and got her some indecent video prepared and started blackmailing the applicant. The Investigating Officer after due investigation on the basis of evidence collected found the offence under section 376 I.P.C too committed by accused and submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C also.