Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1273 (PNJ)

Nafes Ahmed Siddiqui v. State Of Haryana

2000-10-20

AMAR DUTT

body2000
Judgment Amar Dutt, J. 1. This order will dispose of Criminal Misc. Nos. 14818-M and 15335-M of 2000. 2. On 10.5.2000, petitioner Nafes Ahmed Siddiqui has filed Crl. M.No. 14818-M of 2000 for grant of bail in case F.I.R. No. 396 dated 25.12.1998, which was registered at the behest of Shri. K.C. Lakhani, Chairman, Lakhani Group of Industries. According to him, a telephonic message had been received in his office and residence to the effect that if he or his brother Shri P.D. Lakhani take steps to cancel the bail of Munna, they would be killed and further if they oppose the bail of Nafees Ahmed Siddiqui, the present petitioner, they would not be alive. It is not disputed before me that the petitioner had been apprehended or 5.8.1998 on the basis of a complaint made by Shri. P.D. Lakhani to the effect that he had extorted lacs of rupees from the complainant by the threatening them on telephone. Thereafter, on 25.12.1998, the present case had been registered. Bail has been sought in the present case primarily on the ground that one Ram Kishan Singh Chauhan, who had asked for anticipatory bail in case F.I.R. No. 396 dated 25.12.1998 had been granted bail by this Court while disposing of Crl. M.No. 13739-M of 1999 and there is no reason why the present petitioner should not be treated at par. 3. I have heard Shri Ranjan Lakhanpal, appearing for the petitioner, Shri Vijay Dahiya, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana and Shri R.K. Jain, appearing for the complainant. 4. Bail sought for was strenuously opposed by Shri Jain as well as Shri Dahiya but neither of them has been able to point out any material apart from the statement made by the accused while in custody before the officer that the telephonic call regarding which the complaint has been filed was made on his behalf. It would be an open question to what evidentiary value can be attached to such a statement but taking into consideration the circumstances that the petitioner has already been in custody since 25.12.1998 and his co-accused Ram Kishan Singh Chauhan had admittedly been granted anticipatory bail while disposing of Crl. M. NO. 13739-M of 1999. I see no reason why the petitioner should be trated differently. 5. Accordingly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and without commenting on the merits of the case. M. NO. 13739-M of 1999. I see no reason why the petitioner should be trated differently. 5. Accordingly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and without commenting on the merits of the case. I deem it to be a fit case in which the petitioner should be admitted to bail on his furnishing bail bond for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of CJM/Duty Magistrate, Faridabad. Ordered accordingly. It is further directed that the petitioner shall surrender the passport, if any before the trial Court and not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. 6. In case the petitioner absence himself on any date without prior permission of the Court, It will be open to the trial Court to cancel his bail and secore his presence through non-bailable warrants.