PRADEEP CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. for the grant of anticipatory bail in respect of FIR No.66 dtd. 19/3/2021 under Ss. 376, 506, 323 and 354-A of IPC registered at Police Station Women Police Station NIT, Faridabad.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations alleged in the FIR are totally incorrect and false and in fact, the present FIR is only a retaliation act on the part of the complainant because she owes money to the petitioner, which was being demanded back by him. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the FIR was got registered after the petitioner had filed a complaint before the competent Court of law against the complainant and her family for the return of the money which was taken by her by committing fraud. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the complainant had taken money on the pretext of providing jobs to the petitioner as well as to the 24 other similarly situated unemployed youth and the said money was not being returned, which led to the animosity between the petitioner and the complainant and in order to put pressure upon the petitioner, the present FIR has been got registered with false allegations against the petitioner by the complainant.

(3.) Learned State counsel on instructions from ASI Mahabir Singh submits that after the registration of the FIR, corroborating evidence to the allegations alleged in the FIR has already come on record showing involvement of the petitioner. Learned State counsel further submits that the record of the hotels, where the petitioner and the complainant alleged to have stayed, have been obtained. Learned State counsel submits that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to conclude the investigation and unearth the truth behind the allegations as alleged in the FIR as the allegations are very serious.