Rahul @ Monty Rana @ Chikli v. State Of Haryana

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH  (O&M) Date of Decision:- 26.03.2025 RAHUL @ MONTY RANA @ CHIKLI ....Petitioner(s)

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA

...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Present :

Mr. S.S. Jattan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Surender Singh, A.A.G. Haryana.

***** SANJIV BERRY, J. (ORAL) The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 483 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in the following case :- FIR No.

Dated Sections Police Station 18.05.2023 387, 427 and 506 IPC Pinjore, District Panchkula no. 2), Mo 2.

It is, inter alia, contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He contends that the petitioner has no concern with the allegations levelled in the FIR nor had he ever made the telephonic call to the complainant, as has been alleged in the FIR. He submits that challan has already been presented in Court and conclusion of trial will take sufficient long time. Thus, prays for grant of concession of bail to the petitioner.

-23.

Per contra, learned State counsel while referring to the status report filed by the State has assailed the arguments by submitting that the petitioner has committed heinous crime, wherein by doing illegal acts, he had demanded ransom from the complainant and also threatened that otherwise the complainant will face dire consequences. He submits that the complainant was threatened to pay 50 lakhs along with ₹2.5 lakhs per month and on his showing inability, the complainant was threatened that he along with other family members will be shot dead. He further submits that the petitioner is having criminal antecedents and is a habitual offender and if granted the concession of bail, he will again commit illegal activities, besides causing danger to life and liberty of the complainant and his family members. Hence prays for dismissal of the petition. 4.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5.

After considering the rival contentions and perusing the record, it is observed that the instant case was registered on the complaint made by the complainant alleging that he is running a scrap business in Village Kona, District Pinjore, besides having a godown nearby and on 18.05.2023 at about 12.:05 AM, while he was sleeping in his house, he heard the sound of breaking of glass and on coming to the courtyard, he and his family members saw a bottle of beer lying broken at the door of the house, while another bottle of beer was set on fire. The window-panes of his vehicle were also broken and stones were lying therein. Thereafter, at about 12:40 AM, he received a WhatsApp call on his mobile phone and the person from the other side informed him that there is a message from Goldy Brar, asking for

-3ransom of ₹20 lakh besides demand of ₹2 lakh per month. He was also warned that it was only a trailer and next time the things will take serious turn. After some time at about 11:35 AM, the complainant received another call on WhatsApp and the petitioner claimed himself to be Goldy Brar and threatened to pay ₹50 lakh or to face dire consequences. The complainant was further asked to pay ₹2.50 lakh per month and was threatened that if their demand is not met, the complainant along with family members will be killed. The matter was reported to the police and the case was registered. Subsequently, the petitioner was arrested in case FIR No.635 dated 12.08.2023 registered at Police Station City Yamuna Nagar and during his interrogation, he disclosed his involvement in the commission of present offence and subsequently arrested in this case. 6.

In these circumstances, no doubt challan has been presented in Court in the present case, but considering the nature and gravity of offence, coupled with the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, no case is made out in favour of the petitioner for grant of bail to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. 7.

Any observation made above shall not be construed as opinion of this Court on the merits of the case.

(SANJIV BERRY) JUDGE 26.03.2025 S.Sharma(syr) i) Whether speaking/reasoned?

Yes/No ii) Whether reportable?

Yes/No