The Single Judge Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, comprising Justice Anoop Chitkara in the case of Mohd. Jubair v. State of Haryana has dismissed the anticipatory bail application of the accused (herein Petitioner) who was involved in online thugging,
Facts of the Case
The complainant, who worked in Central Reserve Police Force [CRPF], alleged that he received phone calls from three numbers, and offered him loan. The complainant had deposited a total sum of Rs.14,46,662/- in various installments to the accused. The police filed Fir and the investigation pointed out towards the involvement of the present petitioner.
Therefore the accused has filled anticipatory bail petition before this Court.
Reasoning and Decision of the Court
The Court perused the facts of the case and observed that the petitioner himself admitted that the knowledge of the crime and the same taking place through the premises of Haxar Insurance Service Private Limited, where he worked, and the thugee being done by some employees of Haxar Insurance Service Private Limited but did not explain the transfer of money to his account. Given the allegations' nature and the offense's gravity, the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail.
The Court further looked on second ground which was raised by the petitioner that one of the co-accused was granted bail because at that point of time, the State did not bring to the notice of the Court about transfer of crime proceeds. Thus, petitioner is not entitled to bail on the grounds of parity with the co-accused. The Court expounded that the evidence collected by the Investigator points out towards the petitioner’s roll in the said online thuggee and the petitioner cannot claim parity with the co-accused because he is an active member of the gang of online criminals.
The Court also relied on various precedence and in the light of these judicial precedents coupled with the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner fails to make a case for anticipatory bail under section 438 CrPC.
Case Details
Case:- CRM-M-51753-2022
Petitioner:- Mohd. Jubair
Respondent:- State of Haryana
Counsel for the Petitioner – Mr. Devender S. Punia
Counsel for the Respondent - Mr. Manish Bansal,
Judge: Justice Anoop Chitkara
Picture Source :