Vijay Kumar v. State of Haryana

ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. Dated Police Sta2on Sec2ons 340 16.09.2024 Mahesh Nagar, Disti. 308(4), 351(2), 62 of BNS Ambala, Haryana

¶1The pe!!oner apprehending arrest in the FIR cap!oned above has come up before this Court under Sec!on 482 of Bhara!ya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking an!cipatory bail.

¶2In paragraph 11 of the bail pe!!on, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

¶3The facts and allega!ons are being taken from the reply filed by the State, which reads as follows: "3. xxx xxx xxx The brief facts of the case are that on 29.08.2024, Anil Kumar son of Late Shri Krishan Lal resident of H. No. 71 Ekta Vihar Colony Ambala Can* came to Police Post Kardhan, Ambala Can* and submi*ed an applica-on No. 326/Das-, dated 29.08.2024, which contents of applica-on is as follows-To In-charge Police Chowki Kardhan, Police Sta-on Mahesnagar District Ambala. I am Anil Kumar s/o Late Krishan Lal resident of 71 Ekta Vihar Colony Ambala Can* and my Shop namely Microscope factory is in Kacha Bazar Near Junija Hospital at 3111/12 Ambala Can*. My phone number is 98120xxxx, on this phone no. yesterday 28/08/2024 at 2.45. I received a call for extor-on from 79017-xxxxx. He has asked for Rs. 30,00,000/- from me and has threatened to kill order/judgment. 1 me and my son Roopam, if we do not give him this amount and today morning on 29/08/2024 at 7.45 pm, I received another call and he has again asked for this amount. Please provide us security. Sd ANIL KUMAR 98120xxxxx dated 29/08/2024". From the applica-on, it has been found that a call was made to the mobile number 98120xxxxx of the applicant Anil Kumar from the mobile number 79017xxxxx demanding a ransom of Rs. 30,00,000/- from him. The circumstances were found suspicious from the above applica-on and it was very important to verify the circumstances. Hence, Report no. 09 dated 29.08.2024 regarding verifica-on of circumstances was recorded in the daily diary of the police post. A@er verifica-on of the circumstances the case, which were found to be the same as the complaint of complainant Anil Kumar, hence, the present case was registered."

¶4The pe!!oner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent condi!ons and contends that further pre-trial incarcera!on would cause an irreversible injus!ce to the pe!!oner and his family.

¶5The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply.

¶6The complainant's counsel opposed bail and submits that the complainant was aggrieved by calls made to him twice by the accused person for demand of Ransom of Rs.30,00,000/- and threatening to kill him as well as to his son. In furtherance of the above said FIR one person namely Vinod, who was working with the complainant since long, was arrested in the present case. Being working with the complainant, Vinod was very well acquainted with him and everything of the complaint and he has visi!ng term with the complainant's family even. By taking the advantage of the complaint's trust, he planned a conspiracy with the present pe!!oner i.e. Vijay Kumar and one Vansh (Nephew of Vinod) and they made calls to the complainant to pay ransom of Rs.30,00,000/ otherwise they will kill him as well as his son. He further submits that one of the co-accused Vinod was arrested and during inves!ga!on he disclosed the name of the pe!!oner and categorically stated that the ransom demand was made through the present pe!!oner Vijay Kumar. Even otherwise on dated 28.09.2024 loca!on of their Mobile Phones used to demand the ransom was found at Ambala Canti. and while at the !me of second call the tower loca!on was found at Shastri Nagar, Delhi and the present pe!!oner also resident of Delhi. Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the pe!!oner is directly involved in the commission of crime and as such he is not en!tled for the concession of an!cipatory bail. order/judgment. 2

¶7It would be appropriate to refer to the following por!ons of the bail pe!!on: "4. That the pe--oner has been falsely implicated merely on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused because the co-accused Vinod is the brother in law of the pe--oner. Merely because the tower loca-on of the mobile phone allegedly used in the commission of the crime found at the Delhi on 29/09/2024 without geCng the tower loca-on of the mobile phone of the pe--oner it is totally unjus-fied to draw the conclusion that the phone call was made by the pe--oner. Had the tower loca-on of the mobile phone of the pe--oner also been found at the same place, it could have been assumed but in the absence of the tower loca-on of the mobile phone of the pe--oner it is totally unjus-fied Further, the pe--oner is ready to give his voice sample which will make it clear that whether the pe--oner has called for the alleged demand of ransom or not.

¶5That even the mobile number and sim card which was used to make the call does not belong to the pe--oner or any of the family member of the pe--oner and it is not clear at this stage in which name the alleged mobile phone and sim card has been registered. Just because the co-accused has made the disclosure statement that the call was made by the pe--oner and phone is in his possession, without verifying the voice sample with the voice of the caller, it would be totally unjus-fied to arrest the pe--oner when the pe--oner is ready to give his voice sample.

¶6That the pe--oner is 47 years old and doing the work of fancy lights having two young children and wife in the family and the pe--oner has no criminal antecedents. Further the pe--oner neither know the complainant nor having any enmity with the complainant. Further, the co-accused Vinod who was arrested by the police has been granted the regular bail by the Ld. Sessions Court Ambala on 22/10/2024. Copy of the order dated 22/10/2024 is placed on record as Annexure P-3."

¶8It would also be appropriate to refer to the following por!ons of the reply, which read as follows: "7. That on 29.09.2024, the I.0. reached in the office of DTDC Courier Company, Baldev Nagar, Ambala City and moved the applica-on for obtaining the record of parcel No. T29073113 and therea@er, collected four pages of the parcel and the same was taken into possession by preparing the recovery memo. The I.O. also collected the call detail record order/judgment. 3 of Mobile phone of accused-pe--oner bearing No. 98108-xxxxx and Mobile Phone of co-accused No. 98960-xxxxx and on verifica-on of the record, it was found that on the day of occurrence, the accused-pe--oner and co-accused were remained together and therea@er, the accused-pe--oner went to Delhi. On verifica-on of the record of DTDC Courier Company, it was found that parcel No. 29073113 was sent from Jalandhar, Punjab to P Scien-fic Works, Shop No. 6, Sudana Market, near Madan Ka Mandir, Punjabi Bag, Ambala Can* bearing Mobile No. 98960-xxxxx. The DTDC Courier Company record is annexed as Annexure R-2 and CDR of accused-pe--oner and co-accused Vinod are annexed as Annexure R-3 and R-4.

¶8That on the basis of Courier Company record as well as CDRs of accused-pe--oner and co-accused Vinod Kumar, it is found that the co-accused Vinod Kumar received the mobile phone bearing No. 79017-xxxxx through DTDC Company from his niece Vansh resident of Jalandhar, Punjab and therea@er, the accused-pe--oner and co-accused by use of above mobile made a ransom call to the complainant one from Ambala and therea@er, the accused-pe--oner made a second ransom from Delhi. The custodial interroga-on of accused-pe--oner is required in this case. Hence, the present pe--on is liable to be dismissed."

¶9The inves!gator has been able to trace the pe!!oner's involvement through the digital evidence, which indicates towards the pe!!oner's involvement.

¶10A perusal of the bail pe!!on and the documents atiached primafacie points towards the pe!!oner's involvement and does not make out a case for an!cipatory bail. The impact of crime would also not jus!fy an!cipatory bail. Any further discussions will likely prejudice the pe!!oner; this court refrains from doing so.

¶11Any observa!on made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

¶12Pe22on dismissed. All pending applica!ons, if any, are disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

19.12.2024 Jyo2-II Whether reportable: No. order/judgment. 4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 02.12.2024 Pronounced on: 19.12.2024 Vijay Kumar ...Pe!!oner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Mohan Singh Chauhan, Advocate, for the pe!!oner. Mr. Rajat Gautam, Addl. A.G. Haryana. Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate,for the complainant. ****