Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raj Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 9 November, 2011
Author: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Jain
CRM-M-29158-2011 [1]
CRM-M-29518-2011
CRM-M-29533-2011
CRM-M-32661-2011
:::::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(1) CRM-M-29158-2011
Date of decision:09.11.2011
Raj Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
(2) CRM-M-29518-2011
Date of decision:09.11.2011
Shamsher Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
(3) CRM-M-29533-2011
Date of decision:09.11.2011
Vijaypal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
(4) CRM-M-32661-2011
Date of decision:09.11.2011
Jitender Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Present: Mr. Sarvjit Singh Khurana, Advocate,
for the petitioner in CRM-M-29158-2011.
CRM-M-29158-2011 [2]
CRM-M-29518-2011
CRM-M-29533-2011
CRM-M-32661-2011
:::::
Mr. Sailender Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioner in CRM-M-29518-2011.
Mr. Jai Vir Yadav, Advocate,
for the petitioner in CRM-M-29533-2011.
Mr. G.P.Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioner in CRM-M-32661-2011.
Mr. Sagar Deswal, AAG, Haryana.
*****
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL)
This order shall dispose of four bail applications bearing CRM-M-29158-2011 titled as `Raj Kumar Vs. State of Haryana' [hereinafter referred to as the "first petition"], CRM-M-29518-2011 titled as `Shamsher Singh Vs. State of Haryana' [hereinafter referred to as the "second petition"], CRM-M-29533-2011 titled as `Vijaypal Vs. State of Haryana' [hereinafter referred to as the "third petition"] and CRM-M-32661-2011 titled as `Jitender Singh Vs. State of Haryana' [hereinafter referred to as the "fourth petition"] as all the petitions have arisen out of the FIR No.266 dated 11.08.2011, registered under Sections 387, 506, 294, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC at Police Station Model Town, Rewari. Out of the aforesaid four petitions, first petition has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [for short "Cr.P.C."] for grant of pre-arrest bail, whereas rest of the three petitions have been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail.
The FIR is registered at the instance of Dr. Pushpa Yadav who had alleged that she had received a phone call from mobile No.98028-49680 in between 3.10 p.m. to 3.20 p.m. and one missed call. The person, who had made the phone call, had threatened that either she should pay `5,00,000/-, otherwise her son would be kidnapped. She also alleged that the person who had made the phone call was also using abusive language. The alleged mobile number was found to be of one Chhattar Pal which was allegedly obtained by one Jitender Singh by submitting the identity of Chhattar Pal. Petitioner Raj CRM-M-29158-2011 [3] CRM-M-29518-2011 CRM-M-29533-2011 CRM-M-32661-2011 :::::
Kumar, who has applied for anticipatory bail, is the person who is dealing in the sale of SIM cards.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, who are praying for regular bail, have submitted that the petitioners are first offenders and they do not have any previous bad record as they are neither the previous convicts nor any other case is pending against them. He further submits that they are in custody since 12.08.2011, whereas the challan in this case has already been presented. They also submit that except for the alleged threat, no overt act has been alleged to have been committed by the petitioners, whereas learned counsel pursuing the first petition submits that the petitioner in that case had only sold the SIM card on the basis of the ID of Chhattar Pal submitted by Jitender Singh and had no knowledge about the falsity of the said ID.
Learned State Counsel has though opposed the bail application vehemently but has admitted that the challan has already been presented in this case and the case is now fixed for framing of the charge. He, on instructions received from ASI Shri Bhagwan, further states that the petitioners are neither the previous convicts nor any other case is pending against them. He further submits that the petitioner in the first petition has also joined the investigation and is no more required for further interrogation.
In view thereof, the first petition is allowed and the interim order dated 23.09.2011 passed by this Court is hereby made absolute subject to the conditions already contained therein. The second, third and fourth petitions, i.e. CRM-M-29518-2011, CRM-M-29533-2011 and CRM-M-32661-2011 are also allowed and the petitioners therein are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.
A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other connected cases.
November 09, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE