Deepak Alias Lefty vs State Of Haryana

H.S. Madaan, J

Case taken up through video conferencing.

This petition for regular bail has been filed by petitioner â€" Deepak @ Lefty, aged about 22 years â€" an accused in FIR No.33 dated 17.2.2020 for

the offence under Sections 387, 34 IPC (offence under Section 342 IPC added later on), registered at Police Station Uklana.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case as per prosecution story are that criminal machinery in this case was set into motion by complainant Kuldeep son

of Rajpal, aged about 38 years, resident of Uklana, Hisar, who in the written complaint submitted by him addressed to SHO, Police Station Uklana

stated that he is running a hotel under the name and style of 'Tamana Hotel' at Bhuna road, Uklana; on 11.2.2020 at about 6:00 p.m. when he along

with his friend Krishan son of Mange Ram, resident of Hisar were sitting in room No.107 of that hotel talking with each other, then manager of his

hotel, namely, Ram Mehar handed over his mobile phone to him on which Deepak @ Lefty (present petitioner) had conversation with the complainant,

who asked him about his whereabouts; after that mobile call, Deepak @ Lefty along with four other unidentified persons came to room No.107 of his

hotel, where Deepak @ Lefty told the complainant that he was member of Bittu Gang and if the complainant wanted to run hotel, then he would have

to pay them Rs.10 lakhs as ransom by Thursday, otherwise, he would be killed; Deepak @ Lefty further threatened the complainant that in case he

lodged any complaint with the police, then they would kill him; on 12.2.2020 at about 12:00/1:00 in the afternoon, Deepak @ Lefty made a call to the

complainant on his mobile phone threatening that in case complainant did not come to meet him by the next date, then he would kill him; the

complainant had recorded that conversation; further on 14.2.2020, the complainant received a WhatsApp call on his mobile phone from Kala Nara,

elder brother of petitioner/accused threatening that since the complainant had not paid Rs.10 lakhs to them, they would kill him; the complainant was

terrified and had not informed the police promptly; subsequently he gathered courage and intimated the police about the incident; he stated that since

CCTV cameras were installed in his hotel, he would hand over the CCTV footage of 11.2.2020 along with mobile call recording to the police.

On the basis of such complaint, formal FIR was recorded. Accused were arrested in this case. The petitioner had filed an application for regular bail

in the Court of Sessions, which was declined by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar vide order dated 20.5.2020, as such, he has approached this

Court with the same request.

Notice of the petition was given to respondent â€" State and counsel representing the State has put in appearance.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides going through the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is innocent; that there is unexplained delay in reporting the matter to the police; the

petitioner had not demanded any ransom from the complainant; the mobile phone alleged to have been used to threaten the complainant is neither in

the name of petitioner nor has been recovered from him; the co-accused of the petitioner from whom alleged recovery of articles used in the

commission of crime had been effected had been granted bail by Court of Sessions; that the petitioner is in custody since 29.4.2020, therefore, he be

granted concession of regular bail.

Whereas this request is being opposed vehemently by the State counsel.

I find that the allegations against the petitioner/accused are indeed very serious and grave. He is specifically named in the FIR and it is clearly

mentioned that he accompanied by four other persons had come to hotel of complainant and had threatened him, asking him to pay the ransom

amount, otherwise he would be killed. The CCTV footage said to have been collected by the police during investigation of the case corroborates this

fact so does the mobile conversation to that effect between petitioner/accused and the complainant. The mere fact that mobile phone does not stand in

the name of petitioner/accused and was not recovered from his possession does not point out towards his innocence. Now-a-days the criminals are

smart enough not to use the mobile phones in their names for criminal activities, rather most of times, such phones taken in the names of non existing

persons by giving fake identity proofs or in the names of some other person are being used. Furthermore, after committing of crime, the criminals try

to conceal the evidence of the crime and this fact of the mobile phone being not in name of petitioner/accused and having not been found from his

possession cannot be given undue importance. It is a matter of deep concern that a large number of persons especially the youth in the region have

started treading the path of crime to get easy money. Collecting ransom amount is considered to be an easy way of collecting money. Such type of

crime can however be not taken lightly because that creates fear psychosis among the public discouraging the people to start new business and to

develop it further. The petitioner cannot claim parity with the co-accused who are said to have been granted bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Hisar. The petitioner appears to be the main culprit in the case. The plea taken that there is delay in recording FIR and statement of co-accused is not

admissible in evidence and there is no independent corroboration to the version of prosecution etc. are not much relevant for the purpose of deciding a

petition for regular bail, though they may have some relevance while determining the guilt of an accused during the trial. The yardstick for grant of

regular bail is entirely different. The gravity of the allegations, the chances of petitioner/accused running away from the process of law, his attempts to

influence the prosecution witnesses etc. are the factors, which need to be taken into consideration. Here the gravity of allegations against the

petitioner/accused coupled with the fact that there is reasonable apprehension of his absconding and running away and trying to threaten and

intimidate the prosecution witnesses, if released on bail clearly debar him from concession of regular bail.

Therefore, finding no merit in the petition, the same stands dismissed.