AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J . (Oral):
This is second petition for bail, filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the 'Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023'. This petition pertains to a case arising out of FIR No.64 dated 21.06.2025, Police Station City Nakodar, District Jalandhar Rural, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 308(5), 351(3) and 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of this case came into being at the instance of 'Jaidev Kapania', hereinafter being referred to as "complainant" only. It was stated by the above-named complainant that on 12.06.2025 at about 09:54 P.M. when he was present at his shop, he received a call from an unknown person, from mobile number +4915218906134, who demanded Rs.1,00,00,000/- and threatened him of dire consequences including death, on non-payment of abovesaid money. As per complainant, the caller further warned him to be ready to face gunshot in the morning. Thereafter, on 13.06.2025 at about 06:16 PM, he again received a call from mobile number +447352610806, wherein the caller demanded money and sent photos of his shop, abused him and threatened to kill him. Upon refusal, the demand was negotiated and settled at Rs.10,00,000/-. Due to fear, the complainant initially remained silent but later, upon discussion with his family members, approached the police.
It is case of the prosecution that in view of abovementioned statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. As per prosecution, during the course of investigation when the petitioner came to collect money, he was apprehended by the police.
4 Notice of motion.
5 Since advance notice has already been served upon the State, Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab, has appeared on behalf of respondent-State. Hence, service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with. He has filed custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on record. No formal reply has been filed by the State. However, the learned State counsel has orally opposed the present petition.
Heard.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that this is second petition for bail filed by the petitioner, and that the first petition was dismissed on 19.05.2026. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is a young boy, and that against him there are allegations that he had gone to collect money. With regard to above it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the above mentioned allegations are not correct. It has also been contended that after the date of dismissal of former bail petition two witness have been examined by the prosecution, and that there is delay in trial. As per learned counsel for the petitioner in view of above, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of bail.
The learned State counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. According to learned State counsel from the date of dismissal of former bail petition there is no change in circumstance, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of bail.
The record has been perused carefully.
A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a decision: -
that by passing a detailed order with regard to above, the role played by the petitioner in the commission of crime, has been discussed and therefore, the first bail application, filed by the petitioner, was dismissed on 19.05.2026;
ii) that within three months of dismissal of former bail petition this petition has been filed, almost on similar grounds;
iii) that from the date of dismissal of first bail petition no significant change in attending circumstance has taken place, and therefore, it can be held that the present petition is not maintainable.
Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the above mentioned factors, and also the gravity of offence allegedly committed by the petitioner, in my opinion, the petitioner at this stage is not entitled to the benefit of bail and the present petition being devoid of merit deserves dismissal. Hence the same is hereby dismissed accordingly.
However, it is clarified that the abovementioned observations shall not have any bearing upon the merits of the case.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of, accordingly.