Safi Mohammad v. State Of Haryana

216 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 11.08.2025 Safi Mohammad

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:

Mr. Munfaid Khan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Dr. Jasmine Gill, AAG, Haryana.

**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No.

Dated Police Station Sections 01.02.2025 Rozka Meo, 121(1), 132, 262 of BNS District Nuh 1.

The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking anticipatory bail.

2.

Per paragraph 7 of the bail petition as well as para 9 of the reply, the petitioner has the following criminal antecedents:

Sr. No.

FIR No.

Date Offenses Police Station 08.10.2023 148, 149, 323, 325, 427, 452 IPC Rojkameo, District Nuh 07.12.2022 148, 149, 323, 324, 506 IPC Rojkameo, District Nuh 13.01.2025 115, 190, 191(3), 333, 351(3) of BNS Rojkameo, District Nuh 3.

Vide order dated 09.07.2025, the petitioner was granted interim bail, which continues to date.

4.

The facts and allegations are being taken from the reply filed by the State, which reads as follows:

"2. That the detailed facts emanating from the present case are that on

31.01.2025, HC Deepak No. 159/Nuh PoliceStation, Rojkameo along with police staff in government vehicle ERV-0494 and driver was SPO Jafruddin No. 314/Nuh and In-charge ERV named EHC. Hem Prakash No. 542/Nuh were present for crime control and were busy in police raid in case FIR No. 9 dated 13.01.2025 U/s 115,190,191(3), 333, 351(3) BNS Police Station, Rojkameo. In the meantime, a secret informer gave information that accused Safi Mohd. S/o Majid (Petitioner) R/o Badwa, who is named accused and if a raid is conduced, then he could be apprehended. The information was considered to be liable and the accused Safi S/o Majid was apprehended. On his interrogation, he has disclosed his name as Safi Mohd. S/o Majid R/o Badwa. In the meantime, 5/6 person came at the spot in a group and attempted to get released accused Safi Mohd. S/o Majid.

However, when HC Deepak tried to stop them, upon which the ladies, who came with the aforesaid 5/6 persons started quarrelling with HC Deepak and they grappled with HC Deepak and the all accused mentioned above succeeded in getting release accused Safi Mohd. S/o Majid. They have also threatened the police party to kill them. All the aforesaid accused fled away from the spot with accused Safi Mohd. S/o Majid. However, when HC Deepak made an enquired regarding the those persons, who have got released accused Safi Mohd. S/o Majid, it was revealed that they were Juber S/o Majid, Sahukar @ Faruk S/o Asluf, Faruk S/o Ayub @ Ayyam, Jilshad S/o Asloop and Jubeda W/o Faruk R/o Badwa. Thereafter, HC Deepak No. 159/Nuh P.S, Rojkameo prepared a complaint and sent it to police station, Rojkameo, upon which the present FIR No. 18 dated 01.02.

2025 U/s 121(1), 132, 262 BNS Act was registered in police station, Rojkameo and investigation was conducted by the HC Deepak, Police Station, Rojkameo, District Nuh."

5.

The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner would have no objection whatsoever to any stringent conditions that this Court may impose, including that if the petitioner repeats the offense or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, the State may file an application to revoke this bail before the concerned Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and may do so at their discretion, to which the petitioner shall have no objection.

6.

Status report filed by the State is taken on record. The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply. State counsel further submits that petitioner has not joined the investigation and they need custodial interrogation as he is involved in some other cases

also.

REASONING:

7.

Petitioner was granted interim bail vide order dated 09.07.2025. Given the nature of offence and the undertaking given by the petitioner, this Court deems it appropriate to grant him opportunity to mend his ways, as such no ground is made out to discontinue the interim protection. Given above, petition is allowed in terms mentioned above and order dated 09.07.2025 is made absolute, subject to the conditions mentioned in paras No. 8 & 9 of this order.

8.

The petitioner is directed to join the investigation as and when called by the Investigator. The petitioner shall be in deemed custody for Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer or any Superior Officer and shall cooperate with the investigation at all further stages as required. In the event of failure to do so, the prosecution will be open to seeking cancellation of the bail. During the investigation, the petitioner shall not be subjected to third-degree treatment, indecent language, or inhuman treatment. 9.

This bail is conditional, with the foundational condition being that if the petitioner repeats the offense or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, the State shall file an application to revoke this bail before the concerned Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and as per their discretion, they may cancel this bail. 10.

All pending applications, if any, are disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 11.08.2025 anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable:

No.