Anil Kumar v State of Haryana

Punjab And Haryana High Court

 22 November 2012

Bench

RAM CHAND GUPTA Cr. M. No. M-36637 of 2012 (O & M) The Judgment was delivered by : Ram Chand Gupta, J. Crl.M.No.69674 of 2012 1. Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-36637 of 2012 2. The present petition filed u/s. 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.28, dated 15.3.2012, under Sections 195A, 323, 506, 120B IPC and u/s. 66(1) of the Information Technology Act, registered at Police Station Chhainsa, District Faridabad. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faidabad, vide which application filed on behalf of the petitioner for anticipatory bail was dismissed. This is second application for bail filed on behalf of the petitioner-accused. His earlier application was got dismissed as withdrawn by counsel for the petitioner after arguing for some time vide order dated 18.10.2012 passed in Crl.M.No.M-32728 of 2012. 4. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier counsel had withdrawn the petition without any instructions from the petitioner and hence, he has filed another petition. 5. Brief allegations are that brother of complainant -Dal Chand, namely, Rajender and his paternal uncle's son Kapil were murdered. Earlier brother of complainant was tried to be murdered and during the pendency of that case, threatening calls were received by the complainant and family members that they should not pursue the case and during pendency of that case, murder of Rajender was committed. Hence, a case for offence u/s. 302 IPC was registered during pendency of the said case. Threatening calls used to be received by complainant and other family members. On 13.3.2012 at about 9-10 in the night, a threatening call was received on mobile phone of complainant No.09711011403 from mobile No.07357327260 raising threat that either he should compromise and should not give evidence against the accused or he should be ready to face the consequences as was done in the case of his brother Rajender and that he and witnesses would also be done to death. However, learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to inform this Court as to who was the accused in the said murder. 6. During interrogation, co-accused Krishan was arrested, as is clear from the reply to the bail application filed on behalf of the police before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, Annexure P5. He had disclosed that his companions including petitioner-accused, who used to give him information about the proceedings of the murder case, used to give threat to the complainant and the witnesses. He also disclosed that present petitioner-accused was having mobile No.9873114179 and that he also used to supply the requisite information to him and used to raise threat to the complainant and the witnesses. He also disclosed that threatening calls were given 16 times. Prosecution collected all the call details. It also came during investigation that mobile phone No.8443264425, which was also used for giving threat was in the name of Santosh, i.e., mausi of co-accused Krishan. It also came during investigation that petitioner-accused had arranged sending of sim to co-accused Krishan in the jail. 7. It has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioner-accused that his name has not been mentioned in the FIR and that he was having no concern with co-accused Krishan or Santosh and that he is being falsely involved in this case at the instance of Inspector Nand Ram against whom he filed criminal complaint, Annexure P7, and that he had earlier also involved him in a false case, in which has been acquitted. 8. Be that as it may, there are serious allegations against petitioner-accused, as disclosed by co-accused Krishan. It also came during investigation that he used to supply sim to co-accused Krishan in the jail. Hence, the matter requires further investigation and custodial interrogation of the petitioner-accused is necessary. 9. Hence, in view of these facts, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioneraccused. 10. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner-Anil Kumar for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. Petition dismissed