TITLE – Vaneet Sachdeva and Diksha v State of Punjab
Decided On-: May 12, 2023
CRM-M-10868-2023 and CRM-M-20326-2023
CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr. Gurbir Singh
INTRODUCTION –
Anticipatory bail was granted in accordance with the law and the terms laid down by the Hon’ble Court. Failure to cooperate by the respected party will result in consequences.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The FIR in question was filed at the request of one Yashika Sachdeva against her husband Vaneet Sachdeva (petitioner in CRM-M10868-2023) and Diksha 11.05.2022, during which the complainant received calls and messages on her mobile phone. She was startled to discover her obscene videos and objectionable photographs with her husband Vaneet Sachdeva on her Instagram ID by co-accused Diksha, which her husband had created by deceiving her with the intent of blackmailing her from the start. When she spoke to the petitioner Diksha, she began hurling insults and threatening her. Previously, the complainant had filed a police complaint against her husband and inlaws, and as a result, the police registered a FIR under Sections 406, 498-A IPC at Police Station Women Cell, Ludhiana. The complainant also stated in the complaint that Diksha was having illicit relations with her husband Vaneet Sachdeva and that her husband had given indecent videos and photographs of the complainant to Diksha, who was blackmailing and threatening her.
The Inquiry Officer concluded that the aforementioned video was created by the complainant herself, but after the FIR was filed, the State reversed its position. Learned counsel for petitioner Vaneet Sachdeva also contended that the petitioners did not publish or transmit any such video to anyone. Learned counsel for petitioner Diksha has argued that the aforementioned video was neither published nor transmitted by her, and that, according to the prosecution’s version, it was in the mobile phone of Vaneet Sachdeva, from which it was sent. It is also alleged that the offence is heinous. As a result, the petitioners are not eligible for anticipatory bail.
COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION
Notices were served on the petitioners in accordance with Section 41-A of the Cr. P.C., but they did not participate in the investigation. However, there is no proof that they were properly served. Because the allegations against petitioner Vaneet Sachdeva are that he prepared the obscene video and photographs of the complainant (his wife), and said video and photographs were circulated to the complainant’s phone by petitioner Diksha, and it is not the prosecution’s case that the said photographs or video were circulated amongst the general public, petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail.The Hon’ble Court has imposed a few conditions on both the petitioner and the ongoing investigation. If the petitioners do not cooperate or violate this order, the prosecution is free to file an application to cancel the petitioners’ bail.
Both petitions are dismissed in the manner stated above.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Steffi Desousa
