Back
2020 Supreme(Del) 487
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J.
Bharti Khanna - Petitioner
Versus
State - Respondent
Bail Appln. 765 of 2020
Decided On : 23-03-2020
For the Petitioner: Mr.Surinder Anand, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Panna Lal Sharma, APP for State. SI Sanjeev Kumar PS Neb Sarai. Mr. K.K. Manan, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Puneet Parihar, Adv. for complainant.
The seriousness of the allegations and the need for custodial interrogation to establish the petitioner's involvement in the offense were central to the court's decision.
Headnote:
Anticipatory Bail - Extortion - Section 387/506/34 IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 387, Section 506, Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code - The court discussed the allegations of extortion, threats, and conspiracy under these sections, highlighting the elements of the offenses and the requirement for custodial interrogation to establish the petitioner's involvement in the crime.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of extortion and threats made to the complainant and his family, with the petitioner being accused of being involved in a conspiracy to extort money.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the serious allegations against the petitioner and the need for custodial interrogation to establish her involvement in the crime led to the dismissal of the petition for anticipatory bail.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the petitioner's alleged involvement in the extortion and conspiracy to threaten the complainant and his family, as well as the requirement for custodial interrogation to establish her role in the offense.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the seriousness of the allegations, the need for custodial interrogation to gather evidence, and the lack of grounds for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Final Decision: The petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed by the court.
JUDGMENT :
Crl. M.A. 5754/2020
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application is disposed of.
Bail Appln.765/2020
3. Present petition is filed under section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in pursuance to FIR No.100/2020 registered at Police Station Neb Sarai for the offences punishable under section 387/506/34 IPC.
4. As stated in the present petition that as per the allegations, one Vijay Singh Chauhan who is resident of 137/4, Lane No.1, Anupam Garden, Sainik Farm, New Delhi-110068 has stated in his complaint that he is handicapped with a vision problem due to which he cannot see and is bedridden. He got a call on his mobile phone number 9821954832 at 11.44 pm on 09.03.2020 and caller refused to give correct information about his name and identity on his mobile phone and asked for Rs.5 crore as ransom otherwise threatened to kill the complainant and to kidnap his grown-up daughters namely Pari and Pihu from their school i.e. Laxman Public School. When the caller gave such authentic information about the daughters and their school to the complainant, he got afraid of the caller and requested him to share his identity and also enquired where did the caller get his mobile number and information of his family. Said caller replied that he got the mobile number and requisite information from the petitioner, who happened to be employee of the complainant as computer operator during 2016-2017. The petitioner had all information of the complainant's financial transactions because she used to take data while in service. After the aforesaid conversation between caller and the complainant, the call was disconnected for few minutes and the caller again called and stated to the complainant that he is CBI Official and in case money is not given, he would implicate the complainant in some false case.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner remains in the services of complainant w.e.f. 2016-2017 and she left the job because her salary was not paid for quite some months. The complainant has given the mobile number of the petitioner which is 9811200124, which does not belong to her. As a matter of fact when the petitioner joined the services of complainant in the year 2016, she was provided one Mobile Phone No. 9811200124 for her official as well as for personal use. The above said number is registered in the name of complainant himself and the petitioner surrendered the said mobile telephone to the complainant when she left the job in the year 2017.
6. Learned counsel further submits that the complaint was registered on 09.03.2020 at about 00.11 hrs and the caller was arrested on 10.03.2020 at about 2 p.m. It appears that the caller of the ransom was very well known to the complainant and was aware of the whereabouts of the complainant and he has mentioned the name of the petitioner in the present FIR intentionally, deliberately and with malafide intention to harass and humiliate her.
7. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner received one notice under section 41-A Cr.P.C from the Sub Inspector - Sanjeev Kumar, Police Station Neb Sarai, New Delhi on 14.03.2020 vide Diary No.743 wherein she was directed to appear before the aforesaid officer on 16.03.2020 at 2 p.m. In compliance of the said notice, the petitioner went to join the investigation alongwith her counsel, however, not a single question regarding the facts of the case was put to the petitioner and she was directed to write down whatever she knew about the case, which she did. Petitioner was allowed to move out of the police station with her counsel at 6.30 p.m. The conduct of the SI Sanjeev Kumar was remained hostile to the petitioner and she was humiliated and harassed at the hands of such police officer at the police station.
8. As per status report, during investigation, supplementary statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. of complainant Vijay Singh Chauhan was recorded, wherein, he stated that approximately 4-5 years
