Dinesh @ DK vs State Of Haryana & Anr.

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No. 111 dated 10.04.2026, registered under Sections 127(7), 308(7) and 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) at Police Station City Narnaul, District Mahendergarh, to which Sections 140(2), 308(2), 310(2), 351(3), 115(2) and 3(5) of BNS were added later on.

Brief facts of the case relevant for the disposal of the present petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the complaint of Amar Singh, who is a retired employee of Central Bank of India. He alleged that from 15.03.2026 onwards, a woman who introduced herself as Priya Khanna kept calling him on the pretext of seeking information about banking. On 03.04.2026, she called him to Ateli bus stand and from there, took him to Apaar Hotel, Narnaul. In a room of the hotel, she threatened him, made him remove his clothes and took his obscene photographs. When he was dropping her back to Ateli on his scooter, four persons intercepted him in a car. They forcibly made him sit in the car, gave him beatings and demanded Rs.50,00,000/- from him. Under threat of implicating him in a false rape case, they got three cheques of Rs.4,00,000/- each from his daughter-in-law and also got Rs.95,000/- transferred from his account through PhonePe. During investigation, the woman was found to be Meenakshi. She along with co-accused Kapil and Amarjeet was arrested on 10.04.2026. All three of them were released on bail by the learned Duty Magistrate on 11.04.2026 (Annexure P-2). The name of the petitioner surfaced in the disclosure statement of co-accused Meenakshi. As per prosecution, the petitioner was part of the conspiracy and had followed the complainant along with the co-accused. He along with co-accused Amarjeet gave beatings to the complainant and demanded money from him. The petitioner was arrested on 08.05.2026. No recovery was effected from him in pursuance of his disclosure statement. After completion of investigation qua the petitioner, challan was presented in the Court on 05.08.2026 and presently, he is facing trial for commission of the aforementioned offences.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He was not named in the FIR and no role has been attributed to him therein. He has been nominated in this case only on the basis of the disclosure statement of a co-accused, which is not admissible in evidence. Nothing has been recovered from him. The cheques and the amount in question are stated to have been recovered from the co-accused. The main accused, who are alleged to have lured and extorted the complainant, have already been granted the concession of bail. Investigation qua the petitioner stands completed and challan has been filed. As many as 16 prosecution witnesses have been cited, out of whom none has been examined so far. Charges have also not been framed till date. Thus, conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time. The petitioner is on bail in the other cases registered against him, none of which is of a similar nature. He is in custody since 08.05.2026. The complainant has also filed his affidavit (Annexure P-4), stating that he has no objection if the petitioner is released on bail. No useful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody anymore. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner deserves to be released on regular bail.

Status along with the custody certificate of the petitioner has been filed on behalf of the respondent-State. Learned State counsel has argued that the petitioner is the principal accused and had played an active role in the abduction and extortion of the complainant. His role cannot be equated with that of the co-accused who have been granted bail. He is also involved in six other criminal cases. It is, thus, argued that the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that the complainant has no objection to the grant of regular bail to the petitioner, as has also been stated by him in his affidavit (Annexure P-4).

This Court has heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner is alleged to have been part of a conspiracy with the co-accused to extort money from the complainant, after luring him to a hotel through co-accused Meenakshi. He was not named in the FIR and has been nominated in this case on the basis of the disclosure statement of co-accused Meenakshi. Admittedly, no recovery has been effected from him. Co-accused Meenakshi, Kapil and Amarjeet, who are alleged to have played the main role in luring the complainant and in receiving the cheques and the money, have already been released on bail. Whether the role of the petitioner is graver than that of these co-accused is a matter which can be determined only during trial. The complainant, who has been impleaded as respondent No.2, has filed his affidavit (Annexure P-4) and has stated that he has no objection to the grant of bail to the petitioner, although no weightage can be given to the same at this stage. As per the status report, the petitioner is involved in six other cases. In one of these cases, he already stands acquitted, whereas in the remaining cases, he is on bail. None of these cases is of a similar nature. Pendency of other cases, by itself, cannot be a ground to keep the petitioner in custody for an indefinite period. Investigation qua him has since been completed and challan has been presented. Out of 16 prosecution witnesses cited, none has been examined so far and charges are yet to be framed. Conclusion of trial would, thus, take considerable time. The petitioner has been in custody since 08.05.2026. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody anymore. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. The petitioner shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date of hearing. However, it will be open for the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail in case the petitioner fails to appear before the trial Court or is found involved in any other subsequent case.

It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case.