Punjab-Haryana High Court
Navin Kumar vs The State Of Haryana And Another on 25 January, 2012
Crl. Misc. Nos.M- 30675 of 2011
Crl. Misc No.33715 of 2011
----1--
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA,
CHANDIGARH
1- Crl. Misc. No.M-30675 of 2011
Date of Decision: 25.01.2012
Navin Kumar ..... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Haryana and another .... Respondents
2- Crl. Misc. No.M-33715 of 2011
Date of Decision: 25.01.2012
Kamal ..... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Haryana .... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
Present:- Mrs. Anju Arora, Advocate and
Mr. R.D. Yadav, ,Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr.Sagar Deswal, AAG, AAG, Haryana
for the State.
Mr. P.R. Yadav, Advocate
for the complainant.
--
Crl. Misc. Nos.M- 30675 of 2011
Crl. Misc No.33715 of 2011
----2--
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.
Navin Kumar and Kamal petitioners, by way of above mentioned two petitions, have sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No.79 dated 22.04.2011 at Police Station Kosli, District Rewari, for an offence punishable under sections 365 and 506 IPC to which sections 364-A, 387, 342 and 323 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code were added lateron.
The case got registered by Karambir Singh on 22.04.2011 was of kidnapping of his son Vijay Kumar, aged 30 years. He claimed that his son Vijay Kumar went to village Lukhi from village Surkhpur on 18.04.2011 and though he started back for village Kosli at 12.00 am, yet he did not return home. He also alleged that no call was possible on his phone because his phone did not work. He has alleged that on 20.04.2011 he received a call from his son's mobile No.09311091807 on his phone that his son Vijay Kumar was kidnapped and a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as ransom was demanded. The phone call was repeated thereafter from mobile phone no. 09991203632 and the caller introduced himself as Rahul, calling from Jaipur and the demand of ransom was repeated. During investigation 364- A, 387, 342 and 323 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code were added to the case.
Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that on the very next day of the alleged kidnapping of Vijay Kumar, FIR was lodged at Crl. Misc. Nos.M- 30675 of 2011 Crl. Misc No.33715 of 2011
----3--
Jaipur. Vijay Kumar was arrested by the Jaipur police. According to them, Vijay Kumar was involved in a metro scam. When asked to explain the metro scam, they have submitted that Vijay Kumar collected huge amounts from various persons on the promise of getting them jobs in Delhi Metro Railway Corporation Ltd. They have further submitted that when the promise of getting jobs could not materialize and he did not return the amounts taken by him from them, complaint was lodged in the court at Jaipur and that the same was sent to Police Station Shipra Path, Jaipur City for investigation under section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They have further submitted that on the very next day, Vijay Kumar was arrested there. According to them, the kidnapping is alleged to be of 18.04.2011 and that the FIR was lodged by Karambir Singh on 22.04.2011. According to them, there is no explanation for the delay in lodging the FIR. It is further submitted by them that Navin Kumar is not even involved in the metro scam and he is only named by his co-accused. My attention is lastly attracted to Annexure P-3, the affidavit of Vijay Kumar at page 17 of Criminal Miscellaneous No.M- 30675 of 2011 where he has admitted that he received money from various persons namely Surinder Yadav, Rahul Yadav, Lakhan Kumar etc. on the promise of getting jobs for them with Delhi Metro Railway Corporation Ltd. and that he had collected this money because he required the same and that he could not get jobs for them and even failed to return the money to them. They have further submitted that Crl. Misc. Nos.M- 30675 of 2011 Crl. Misc No.33715 of 2011
----4--
this affidavit makes the things very clear. According to them, it shows that the FIR of kidnapping has been lodged only to avoid payment of the money, which Vijay Kumar received from various persons on the false promise of getting them jobs.
Learned State counsel with the assistance of learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the FIRs in kidnapping cases are lodged by people with caution because sometimes giving of information to the police leads to harm to the victim because the kidnappers get scared and they kill the victim to wife off the evidence against them. It is further submitted by him that the FIR was lodged at Jaipur by the alleged kidnappers and it is thus kidnappers who produced Vijay Kumar before the police at Jaipur which further shows that Vijay Kumar was in their custody. They have further submitted that it is a serious offence and the petitioners should not be allowed anticipatory bail.
Application for anticipatory bail was moved by Navin Kumar before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, which has been decided vide order dated 24.09.2011. A copy of that order on record is Annexure P-7. It was submitted before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari on behalf of Navin Kumar that Navin Kumar was also cheated by Vijay Kumar. So it cannot be believed at this stage that Navin Kumar was not there among the persons, who claimed to have been cheated by Vijay Kumar. In case of kidnapping of a near and dear one, his relations wait for the call of Crl. Misc. Nos.M- 30675 of 2011 Crl. Misc No.33715 of 2011
----5--
the kidnappers because their main concern is the safe return of the victim, for which they do not mind paying the ransom if that is within their means to pay. So the very delay in lodging the FIR has no meaning in such a case.
The affidavit of Vijay Kumar is not shown to bear any date and there is nothing on the record to suggest that the said affidavit was executed by Vijay Kumar of his own free will.
Keeping in view the seriousness of the matter, I do not find the petitioners to be entitled to anticipatory bail. Consequently, the petitions are dismissed.
January 25, 2012 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK)
dinesh JUDGE