The court emphasized that in cases involving serious allegations, the absence of direct evidence and prolonged custody may warrant the granting of bail.

JUDGMENT :

Mrs. Manisha Batra, J.

The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’) by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 398 dated 19.07.2022 registered under Sections 385 and 420 of IPC ( Sections 388 , 420, 120-B and 180 of IPC added later on) at Police Station Sadar Jind, District Jind.

2. As per the prosecution case, the present petitioner had lodged a case bearing FIR No. 548 of 2021 under Sections 354 , 506 and 376 read with Section 511 of IPC and under the provisions of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act, 1989’) at Police Station Sonipat against ASI Satish, brother of the present complainant. The abovesaid Satish had been arrested in that case and was in custody. The complainant lodged the aforementioned FIR alleging that on 29.09.2021, one unknown person came to meet Manju Bala wife of Satish and offered to resolve the case as registered against the latter by meeting the husband of the present petitioner. The family members of the complainant made a contact with accused Sunil who is husband of the petitioner on his mobile phone and thereafter, they met the petitioner and co-accused Sunil. Both of them raised demand of Rs. 50,00,000/- in order to settle the case registered against Satish. They also asked the complainant to arrange an affidavit for assuring that no action would be taken against them. After convening some meetings, it was settled that the complainant’s family would give an amount of Rs. 32,50,000/- to the present petitioner and her husband and they would withdraw the case lodged against Satish. The petitioner was contacted through phone on 22.03.2022 in the presence of members of the complainant party and her family members and she assured to file a sworn affidavit for quashing the FIR against Satish on receipt of money.

3. As per the allegations, on 23.03.2022, an amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- was handed over to the accused persons by the complainant party and remaining amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- was given two days thereafter. The complainant alleged that his nephew had recorded the entire conversation that had taken place between the accused persons and his family members in the meanwhile. By alleging that the petitioner and co-accused had extorted money from them by pressurizing them, the complainant prayed for taking action in the matter.

4. After registration of FIR, investigation under Sections 485 and 470 of IPC, investigation proceedings were initiated. The accused- Subhash who is father-in-law of the petitioner joined investigation on 04.010.2022 and was arrested. He suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime. The accused Sunil was arrested on 05.11.2022. He too suffered a disclosure statement. After completion of investigation, challan under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. was presented against them under Sections 385, 388 and 420 read with Section 120-B of IPC.

5. As per the allegations, further investigation of the case was transferred to DSP, Fatehabad. The petitioner was joined into investigation along with some other persons. Initially, her involvement in the commission of the aforementioned offences could not be established on conducting inquiry. However, further investigation was also conducted during the course of the same. The accused Vinod Kumar and Palla Ram were arrested. Challan was presented against them on completion of the investigation. The petitioner was joined into investigation on 20.08.2024 and was arrested on the same day. Her mobile phone was recovered. She too suffered disclosure statement