Sudhir v. State Of Haryana

CRM-M-9408-2017 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH.

Criminal Misc. No.M-9408 of 2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: May 30, 2017 Sudhir ......PETITIONER(s).

VERSUS

State of Haryana ....RESPONDENT(s).

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA

Present:

Mr. Bijender Dhankhar, Advocate for the petitioner (s).

Mr. Vikramjit Singh, Addl.A.G. Haryana.

******* SURINDER GUPTA, J.

The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.7 dated 05.01.2017 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 386, 504, 506, 148 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and 25 of Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station City Rewari District Rewari. Heard.

As per case of the complainant, he was called by the petitioner, who made to talk him with one Jhota @ Raj Kumar, who further asked the complainant to come to his house. Thereafter, petitioner Sudhir came to the clinic of complainant and took him to the house of Jhota at Sandhi Ka Bass. There 2-3 other persons were present. Jhota on pistol point demanded `5 lakh from the complainant which the complainant out of fear agreed to pay. Sachin Mehta 2017.05.31 17:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-9408-2017 -2On reaching home, he discussed the matter with several persons but all refused to help the complainant out of fear of Jhota. Thereafter, Jhota @ Raj Kumar had been making calls abusing the complainant and threatening him to pay `5 lakh or he will be killed.

Learned State counsel submits that as per the investigation made by the police so far and statement of co-accused recorded, threatening calls to the complainant were given from the mobile phone of petitioner. The sim card used was also in the name of petitioner and his direct involvement in the matter is disclosed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that co-accused have since been arrested and the role attributed to the petitioner is that he had made a telephonic call to the complainant. Keeping in view the gravity of the offence and that custodial interrogation of the petitioner will assist the police in proper investigation of this case which has serious consequences in the society, I find no reason to extend the benefit of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. There is no merit in the present bail application and the same is dismissed.

( SURINDER GUPTA ) May 30, 2017 JUDGE Sachin M.

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No Sachin Mehta 2017.05.31 17:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH