Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2231 (PNJ)

Jakir @ Mota v. State of Haryana

2022-12-21

ANOOP CHITKARA

body2022
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. 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 allegations against the present petitioner-Sanjidha are on suspicious ground not corroborated with any substantial evidence. Although the act has been committed by other three persons is very heinous but the kind of evidence which is available against the present petitioner would not justify her further pre-trial incarceration coupled with the fact that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, she makes out a case for regular bail.' 7. Although the act has been committed by other three persons is very heinous but the kind of evidence which is available against the present petitioner would not justify her further pre-trial incarceration coupled with the fact that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, she makes out a case for regular bail.' 7. After that this court granted bail to other co-accused Munni in terms of paragraph 9 of order passed in CRM-M 375 of 2022, which is extracted as under:- ?' In the present case, this Court without going into the merits of the case is considering the fact that the petitioner has been in custody for sufficient period of time and has a baby of 2 years, who due to such tender age has not been vaccinated. Due to the present Covid-19 Pandemic, which is likely to peak sometime in February 2022, the possibility of baby catching the infection cannot be ruled out. There is no justification to continue such a young child in the jail simply because her mother is an accused.' 8. The role assigned to the petitioner is that he had pointed pistol towards the victim and is member of money trapping mafia. It might be hazardous for the victim in case he is released on bail before the recording of the statement of victim. An analysis of the allegations and evidence collected does not warrant the grant of bail to the petitioner. 9. Even earlier the petitioner had filed bail application bearing CRM-M No.4837 of 2022, which was dismissed on 17.02.2022. Moreover, custody of the petitioner cannot be stated to be prolonged vis-?-vis henious nature of allegations as such petitioner is neither entitled to grant of bail on the parity nor on merits. 10. Given above, the petitioner's case does not fall in the category of cases where bail ought to be granted. 11. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner fails to make a case for bail at this stage. 12. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. Petition dismissed in aforesaid terms. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed.