Hussain v. State Thr. Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi

$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 1105/2017 HUSSAIN ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Parveen Kumar, Advocate.

versus STATE THR. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Neelam Sharma, APP for the State with Insp. Bal Ram and SI Ash Mohammad, PS Crime Branch, Delhi.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL

O R D E R

% 02.06.2017 Crl.M.A. 9853/2017 (exemption) Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of.

BAIL APPLN. 1105/2017 1.

Notice. Learned counsel for the State accepts notice. 2.

Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has filed this application under Section 438 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Code') for grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered vide FIR No. 20/2016, dated 17.02.2016 Police Station Crime Branch, Delhi, under Section 364A/395/342/452/468/471/120B of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC').

3.

As per the prosecution version, the complainant Balji Bhai, posted as a peon in a Government Hospital at Bhachau, District Bhuj, Kutch in the

State of Gujarat, received a phone call on his mobile phone no. 9624372397 from mobile no. 8741955026. The person calling from the other side told his name as Raju and further said that he could provide him a car on cheap prices. This prompted the complainant to proceed to Delhi on 21.12.2015 by train along with one of his acquaintance namely Alpesh Thakkar. When the complainant and his friend arrived in Delhi, they met a friend of Raju, who actually made a phone call to him and told him that Raju asked him to come with him at Palwal. Accordingly, the associate of Raju took Balji and Alpesh to Palwan by bus, where they met two more friends of Raju, sitting on a motorcycle.

The associate of Raju, who were on the motorcycle told the complainant that the vehicle which he wanted to see is parked at some distance and he should sit on the motorcycle to see the same. Alpesh refused to go ahead with them, however Balji went along with them on their motorcycle. They took him to a hill near a forest area, where 8/10 persons were already present. Those persons started beating the complainant and asked him to deposit Rs.5,00,000/- in their account, failing which they would kill him. They also talked to his son Jatin over phone and told him that they have kidnapped his father and he should immediately deposit an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- in their account failing which they would kill their father. They robed the complainant of Rs.20,000/- and mobile phone which he was carrying.

Next day, during afternoon one of the accomplice of the accused persons came over there and told them that a team of Delhi Police has raided the place and thereafter they left him at that place and fled away. Somehow, the complainant returned to his house at Bhachau by train. 4.

The son of the complainant Sh. Jatin lodged a Zero FIR dated 24.12.2015 under Section 365 of IPC with PS Bhachau at 13:45 hours.

5.

Learned Public Prosecutor submits that it has come during investigation that the mobile number 9610020500 of the petitioner was also used in the crime. SMSs were also sent from two mobile numbers 08741955026 and 8979843226 on the mobile of the son of the complainant asking him to deposit money with their Punjab National Bank account. Ransom call was also received by the son of the complainant on 23.12.2015. The mobile phones used by Taufiq @ Kala and Sunny @ Raju were recovered. These accused persons refused to participate in the TIP proceedings. The accused Sadam was identified by the victim in the TIP proceedings. The first charge sheet was filed against Taufiq @ Kala and Sunny @ Raju on 24.11.2016. Supplementary charge sheet has also been filed on 09.02.2017 against Javed, Mausam, Sadam and Sajid. They are facing trial before the learned ASJ, Tis Hazari Courts. 6.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is being falsely implicated in this case. He submits that he was released from Deeg Jail, District Bharat Pur, Rajasthan on 22.12.2015 in the evening in a case vide FIR No. 573/2015 U/s. 399/402/353/307 IPC and 3/25 of the Arms Act, PS Kama, District Bharat Pur, Rajasthan. He further submits that on the face of it no case is made out against the petitioner. 7.

Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner is absconding. Non bailable warrants were issued against him, but could not be executed. Proceedings U/s. 82 Cr.PC are initiated to declare him Proclaimed Offender. She submits that the petitioner is a mastermind of the crime. She further submits that the complainant travelled from Gujarat on 21.12.2015 and reached Delhi on 22.12.2015 in the evening and thereafter he was taken to the scene of crime by the associates of the petitioner. She further submits

that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to recover the mobile phone and Rs.20,000/- cash of the complainant. She also points out that the petitioner is involved in three more cases apart from 573/2015 mentioned hereinbefore. The petitioner is also facing trial in case FIR No. 317/2012 U/s. 323/342/34 PS Kama, District Bharat Pur, Rajasthan, FIR No. 440/2013 U/s. 420/406/120B of IPC, PS Kama, District Bharat Pur, Rajasthan and FIR No. 480/2015 U/s. 143/364A/384 IPC, PS Kama, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan. She further submits that a reward of Rs.50,000/- has been announced by the Delhi Police in respect of the petitioner. 8.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 9.

Considering the gravity of offence and seriousness of allegations and since the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for recovery of mobile and Rs.20,000/- cash of the complainant/victim this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 10.

The application is accordingly dismissed.

VINOD GOEL, J.

(VACATION JUDGE) JUNE 02, 2017 "sk"