Allowed

Rajinder Kumar Verma and Anr. v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC14 May 2015CRM-M/10184/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge bench allowed a regular bail petition against two elderly petitioners accused of inaction regarding uploading intimate scenes. The court noted the absence of specific evidence against them for instigation and found the applicability of certain IT Act sections debatable. Bail was granted on heavy surety.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail allowed to both petitioners on furnishing heavy surety to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Kapurthala.

Rajinder Kumar Verma and Anr. Vs State of Punjab — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Criminal Misc. No. M-10184 of 2015(O&M) Date of decision : May 14, 2015

¶3

Rajinder Kumar Verma and another

....Petitioners

versus

State of Punjab

....Respondent

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Fateh Deep Singh

¶9

Present : Mr. Pandit Vinod Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. C.S.Brar, DAG, Punjab assisted by Mr. PS Khurana, Advocate, for the complainant

¶10

Fateh Deep Singh, J. (Oral)

¶11

The allegations against petitioners Rajindeer Kumar Verma and Vandana Verma in this regular bail application who happens to be the inlaws of daughter of complainant-Joginder Dutt Sharma are that on account of matrimonial dispute between their son Balraj Verma and daughter of the complainant which was ultimately sorted out and the parties have secured divorce. The husband had put some intimate scenes of the couple on the porn site and had been messaging the same to her which were explicitly vulgar in nature. The contentions of the counsel for the petitioners are that there is no specific role much less any evidence against the present petitioners for instigating their son in uploading the intimate scenes. To the

¶12

DALBIR SINGH TIWANA 2015.05.15 13:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

¶13

Criminal Misc. No. M-10184 of 2015(O&M)

¶14

-2-

¶15

very query of the Court, learned State counsel fairly accepts that nothing has come out in the investigation to that effect against the present petitioners. Thus, applicability of sections 66-A and 67-A of the Information Technology Act is debatable. The petitioners as is submitted by counsel for the petitioners, are aged 57 and 56 years respectively and are in custody since 7.3.2015.

¶16

Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, though counsel for the complainant Mr. PS Khurana has sought to assist the State arguing that the conduct of the petitioners during anticipatory bail application was not in accordance with law, are matters which cannot be taken note of at this stage. Investigation and trial shall take long time to conclude.

¶17

In view of the aforesaid, without meaning to express any opinion on the merits, the instant bail petition is allowed. Bail to both the petitioners on furnishing heavy surety to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Kapurthala.

¶18

May 14, 2015 'tiwana'

¶19

( Fateh Deep Singh ) Judge

¶20

DALBIR SINGH TIWANA 2015.05.15 13:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

Rajinder Kumar Verma and Anr. v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajinder Kumar Verma and Anr. v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mantinderjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Hardeep Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Mahender Singh Vs State of Haryana

Jatinder Garg @ Jatinder Kumar @ Pappa Vs State of Punjab

Dhiraj Kumar and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Suman Vs State of Haryana and Ors.