Back
2022 Supreme(P&H) 1380
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anoop Chitkara, J.
Jakir @ Mota - Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (M) No. 54407 of 2022
Decided On : 21-12-2022
Abhinav Sood, Advocate, Vikram Singh, Advocate, Rajat Gautam, Advocate
The decision emphasized that the nature of the evidence and the role of the accused in the crime are crucial factors in determining bail applications.
Headnote:
Bail - Criminal Procedure - IPC 1860, Arms Act 1959 - 388, 389, 506, 379-B, 201, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, Section 25 (Act No.54) - The court discussed the bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and considered the petitioner's criminal history, the nature of the allegations, and the previous bail granted to co-accused. The court found that the evidence against the petitioner did not justify further pre-trial incarceration, but the hazardous nature of the allegations and the petitioner's role in the crime did not warrant bail.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a complaint against the petitioner and others for extortion and conspiracy. The complainant was lured by a girl, and upon meeting her, he was threatened, robbed, and extorted by the petitioner and co-accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence against the petitioner did not justify further pre-trial incarceration, but the hazardous nature of the allegations and the petitioner's role in the crime did not warrant bail.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be granted bail considering the nature of the allegations and the previous bail granted to co-accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the nature of the evidence against the petitioner, the hazardous nature of the allegations, and the petitioner's role in the crime in determining the bail application.
Final Decision: The petition for bail was dismissed based on the hazardous nature of the allegations and the petitioner's role in the crime, despite the previous bail granted to co-accused.
JUDGMENT
Anoop Chitkara, J. -
| FIR No. | Dated | Police Station | Sections |
| 134 | 21.6.2021 | City Nuh, District Nuh | 388, 389, 506, 379-B, 201, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, 1860 and Section 25 (Act No.54) of Arms Act, 1959 |
1. The petitioner, incarcerating upon his arrest in the FIR captioned above, came up before this Court under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking bail.
2. In paragraph 25 of the petition, it is declared that the accused has no criminal history.
3. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family. He further submits that the co-accused Munni and Sanjida have also been granted bail by this Court and on the ground of parity, the petitioner also deserve grant of bail.
4. The contention on behalf of the State is that bail encourages criminals.
REASONING:
5. Brief facts of the case are that on 21.06.2021, the complainant gave a written complaint to the police Station for taking action against Munni, Jakir alias Mota (the present petitioner), Nishi and Sanjida. The complainant informed the police that around one and half months earlier, he received a phone call from No.8814951623, a girl spoke, who later on turned out to be Nishi (A3). Initially on one or two occasions, complainant refused to talk to the said girl but she kept on calling. Later on he started talking to her. After talking for some time, Nishi (A3) kept on pressurizing the complainant to meet her. Subsequently, the complainant met her on 15.06.2021 at 6:00 p.m. at Nuh Bus Stand. Nishi met the complainant and told him that she has to go to Bhiwandi and asked him to drop her on his bike. Subsequently, on such allurement the complainant agreed to drop her on his bike. After crossing the valley, Nishi told the informant go via Silkho and when they reached near Railway Line, Village Gunawat, which was an isolated place, Nishi told the informant to perform sex with her. She further warned in case he does not do coitus, she will raise cries and will gather the people. However, the informant didn't indulge in any bad act upon her and then Nishi herself ripped her clothes and called Jakir and Munni at the spot. Jakir pointed a katta on the informant's temple and snatched 4000-5000/- that he was carrying. Further they asked the informant to give Rs.10 lacs otherwise they would involve him in false case under section 376 IPC. The informant made an excuse to them that he has to arrange the money by going home. On this assurance, they let him go. On 16.06.2021, Munni made a phone call to the informant demanding the money. Even Sanjida, the present petitioner was also involved in the conspiracy with the other three accused. On 17.06.2021, Munni visited his house and met his wife, who was unaware about the said episode. On 18.06.2021, Munni again visited their house and offered to compromise the matter provided they pay sum of Rs.10 lacs. On 20.06.2021, the three accused called the informant and demanded Rs.4.5 lacs and threatened him, if the amount is not paid to them, they will register a false case against the informant. Faced with this situation, the informant thought it prudent to involve the police. The informant further told that he had audio and video recording of the entire incident and Munni is the gang leader and doing the business of honey trapping. He further told that Munni would be coming to receive the money and she can be nabbed. Based on this, the police registered the above-mentioned FIR. During the investigation, the police arrested the present petitioner-Sanjidha.
6. The petitioner seeks bail also on parity. This court vide granting bail to co-accused-Sanjida in CRM-M 49280 of 2021, observed in paragraph 8 in the following terms:-
'A perusal of the FIR reveals that main culprits are Nishi, Munni and Zakir. The allegatio
