VIKAS BARALA Vs. UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner prays for bail pending trial in FIR No. 156 dated 05.08.2017, under Section 354D IPC (Sections 341/365/511 read with Section 34 IPC and section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 were added subsequently), registered at Police Station Sector 26, Chandigarh.

(2.) As per the allegations in the FIR, the complainant on the intervening night of 4th and 5th August, 2017 had gone to Chandigarh to pick up her car which had earlier malfunctioned. On her return, while she was on the Sector 7 internal market road, a white TATA Safari car started following her. When the complainant was sought to be intercepted at traffic lights of Sector 7 and 26 by this vehicle, she proceeded towards St. John's High School. Another attempt was made by the driver (the present petitioner) of the said TATA Safari car to block the complainant's car. In the meanwhile, the complainant called the police helpline at 100. Transcript of the conversion of the victim at the said helpline number is attached as Annexure P2 with this petition. It is further mentioned in the FIR that the driver of the TATA Safari vehicle i.e., the present petitioner repeatedly swerved towards her car. She being scared did not stop her car at any place. At the Chandigarh Housing Board junction, the complainant had to stop her car due to red lights. The person (co-accused/non applicant) sitting in the said TATA Safari vehicle came out. He tried to open the rear door of the complainant's car and banged on her car window. The complainant reversed her car and managed to escape from the Chandigarh Housing Board junction. A call was received by the complainant from the police authorities that the car in question had been apprehended. She was asked to come and file a complaint which was duly recorded by her at the police station. The incident is stated to have occurred between 12.20 a.m. to 12.45 a.m. on 05.08.2017. The complainant stated that she was convinced that both the accused intended to abduct her. FIR under Section 354D IPC was initially registered on 05.08.2017. The petitioner and co-accused were released on bail. Thereafter, offences punishable under Sections 341/365 read with Section 511 IPC as well as section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 were added. The petitioner was arrested on 09.08.2017.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the present is a case triable by a Magistrate. The petitioner has been in custody since 09.08.2017. The aforesaid FIR was initially registered under Section 354D IPC. The petitioner was arrested in this matter on 05.08.2017 itself and released on bail. Statement of the complainant under Section 164 Cr.P.C., 1973 was recorded on 05.08.2017. It is argued that the complaint on the basis of which the FIR was lodged, was actually written by the complainant's father in the presence of a lawyer. It is further submitted that opinion of the District Attorney was sought and offence punishable under Section 365 read with Section 511 IPC was wrongly added on 09.08.2017 due to some pressures. Allegations in the FIR, it is submitted, do not indicate the commission of any offence qua the petitioner and specifically, no offence punishable under Section 365 read with Section 511 IPC is made out. The petitioner himself surrendered on 09.08.2017 in this matter and he has extended complete cooperation in the investigation of this case. Moreover, the complainant in this case has been examined before the learned trial court. The petitioner, who is not involved in any other criminal case, undertakes not to misuse the concession of bail, if afforded to him. It is thus prayed that this petition be allowed.