HET RAM GARG Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of aforementioned six petitions praying for cancellation of regular bail granted to respondent No.2-accused Sandeep Kumar, Kishan Choudhary, Raj Kumar @ Raju, Surender Chaudhary @ Pammy Chaudhary and Keshav Sanghi, vide orders dated 10.01.2019, 07.01.2019, 21.01.2019, 15.01.2019 and 10.01.2019 respectively, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, in FIR No.525 dated 07.10.2018 under Sections 420, 469, 294, 120-B IPC, Section 66-D of the Information and Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 201/384 IPC and Sections 67, 67A and 67E of I.T. Act (added later on), registered at Police Station City Narnaul, District Mahendergarh and for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.2-accused Ashok Chaudhary, in the aforesaid FIR, by the Sessions Judge, Narnaul, vide order dated 13.11.2018.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that as per allegations in the FIR, registered at the instance of complainant Hetram Garg, Gopal Sharan Garg is his cousin and he was elected as President of Sanathan Dharam Education Board in the elections held in the year 1995 and his opposite group headed by Kishan Chaudhary and his brother Surender Kumar Chaudhary, in collusion with some other persons, tried to interfere in his management over the institution, upon which civil litigation ensued between them. Civil Suit of Gopal Sharan and his associates was decreed by the trial Court and the appeal of his opponents was dismissed by the lower appellate Court and also by this Court. During that litigation, a receiver was appointed by this Court, who also conducted the elections, wherein again Gopal Sharan Garg and his associates had won. Thereafter, Kishan Chaudhary and his group started making false complaints against Gopal Sharan Garg etc. with local administration, which were found false. The police initiated proceedings under Sections 182/211 IPC against Ashok Chaudhary, who is brother of Kishan Choudhary and Surender Chaudhary. Thereafter, the opponents of Gopal Sharan Garg had hatched a conspiracy to make him defame. On 28.09.2018, Surender Chaudhary made a phone call from his mobile phone No.9416065705, on the phone No.9416065831 of complainant Het Ram Garg, asking him to meet in connection with a secret urgent matter belonging to personal affairs of his family. Thereafter, on 29.09.2018 at about 8:30 AM, Surender Chaudhary alongwith one young boy went to house of the complainant and they carried a laptop. On asking by the complainant, Surender Chaudhary told him that he was having a CD against Gopal Sharan Garg and he wanted to display the same. Surender Chaudhary took out a pen drive and gave it to his companion and asked him to play in the laptop. The laptop displayed an obscene video, wherein a person having similar appearance as of his brother was found in compromising position with a woman and the video pictures were very obscene. The complainant told him that his brother was not of such character and could not do such act and the said video did not belong to him. Surender Chaudhary threatened him that he would put at stake the honour and reputation of his family by making public the said obscene video, as a result of which his brother and all the family members would not be in a position to face the public. Despite repeated requests of the complainant, initially Surender Chaudhary remained adamant, but later on he told him that if he wanted to save the honour and respect of his family and to prevent that obscene video being publicly viral, to ask his brother Gopal Sharan Garg to quit Sanatan Dharam Sabha and its institutions and to hand over the charge of school and Dramatic Club to them and also to give them permission in writing for organizing Ramleela and other Dramas in the school ground. The complainant told him that his brother was away to Jaipur to attend a meeting and they would discuss the same after 2-3 days on his return. Surender Chaudhary again told him to make his brother understand, otherwise he would get a rape case registered from woman appearing in video against him, would get him lodged in jail for whole of life and put at stake the honour and respect of their family. Surender Chaudhary also informed him that all those articles were in their possession and also told him to take decision after understanding the pros and cons. On asking about the source of video and place of incident, Surender Chaudhary told him that he had nothing to do with the same and such like acts were very easy for them. The complainant was shocked and feared. Surender Chaudhary left the place with his pen drive and laptop and the boy accompanying him. On return of Gopal Sharan Garg from Jaipur, complainant apprised him with said incident, upon which his brother told him that it was fake and forged video and nothing of the sort had happened. It is further alleged that Gopal Sharan Garg had undergone operation of knee replacement on 04.07.2018 in Jaipur Hospital and thereafter, he remained on bed rest. He has been getting regular physiotherapy and leaves the town only in case of necessity. He is 62 years old, having married children and also having grandchildren. During the investigation, Raj Kumar @ Raju was arrested on 24.10.2018 and he had made disclosure statement that Keshav Sanghi had paid him ?1,00,000/- for giving video to him, which was prepared by him in Green Lotus Hotel, Delhi. He has further disclosed that the mobile, with which video was prepared, was sold by him, but the video was downloaded in new mobile and later on, he had deleted the same, after coming to know that the said video had become viral. The police had also associated the person, who had accompanied Surender Chaudhary to house of the complainant and had displayed the video in laptop. Thereafter, respondents-accused were arrested and later on, they were granted the concession of regular bail/anticipatory bail on different dates considering the allegations levelled against them.

(3.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has primarily argued that while granting the bail to respondents-accused, the Additional Sessions Judge has not taken into consideration the serious allegations levelled against them. With regard to respondent-accused Sandeep Kumar, the Additional Sessions Judge had observed that as per the prosecution version, CD, in which petitioner No.2-Gopal Sharan Garg was found in a compromising position with a lady, was prepared by accused Raj Kumar @ Raju about two years ago, who was driver of Gopal Sharan Garg and Sandeep Kumar had no concern with preparation of the CD. Similarly, with regard to accused Keshav Sanghi, it was observed that his name was not mentioned in the FIR.