Noor Salim Rana vs State
2012 Latest Caselaw 2776 Del

*       THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                              Bail Appln. 553/2012

                                               Date of Decision: 27.04.2012

NOOR SALIM RANA                                             ..... Petitioner
                               Through:   Mr. O.P. Wadhwa with Mr. Ritu
                                          Gupta, Advocates.

                      versus


STATE                                                  ..... Respondent
                               Through:   Ms. Fizani Husain, APP with
                                          Inspector Jagminder Singh, P.S.
                                          Sabi Karim

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

M.L. MEHTA, J.

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No. 70/2009, P.S. Nabi Karim, Delhi.

2. The FIR was registered on the statement of Reshma Manoj Aggarwal wife of Manoj Aggarwal who was allegedly kidnapped at gun point on 07.07.2009 and at the gun point was taken in a car and confined at Rana Paper Mill by co accused persons at the instance of the petitioner. It is alleged that he was kept in confinement inside a room there from 07.07.2009 to 10.09.2009. Later his wife Reshma filed a Hebeas Corpus petition at Aurangabad Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court. The petitioner was produced there and was released. It is also alleged against

the petitioner and co-accused persons that they had demanded a ransom of Rs.50.00 lacs for the release of the petitioner. On account of this allegation section 364A was also added in the FIR.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the instant FIR registered against the petitioner and co-accused persons was a counter-blast of the FIR registered against Manoj Aggarwal and his brother Ashwini Aggarwal at Nai Mandi, Muzaffarnagar under section 420/406 IPC on 04.02.2009. In this regard, it is submitted that the petitioner had filed a Writ at Allahabad High Court from where he got the protection from arrest till the filing of the charge-sheet. It is submitted that there is no mention of any ransom amount much less an amount of Rs.50.00 lacs by the petitioner in the statements of Manoj Aggaral. It was next submitted that till date no notice under section 160 Cr. P.C. was given to the petitioner and that the petitioner was willing to join the investigation. The learned counsel relied upon the cases of Ram Saran Vs. State of Haryana, Criminal Misc. No. 32158-M of 1998; Amarjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab, Criminal Misc. No. 1234-M of 1999; Siri Krishan Dass Vs. State of Haryana, Criminal Misc. No. 2276-M all of Punjab & Haryana High Court and Parmanand Saini Vs. State, 89 (20010) DLT 637 of this High Court.

4. On the other hand, learned APP strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail alleging the offences to be of very serious nature. It was submited that Manoj Aggarwal was not only kept in confinement for 63 days, but, he was also seriously beaten and tortured and ransom amount of Rs. 50.00 lacs was demanded for his release. It is submitted that Manoj Aggarwal was recovered by the police from Rana Paper Mill,

which is owned by the petitioner. It is next submitted that Manoj Aggarwal in his statement under section 164 Cr. P.C. has categorically implicated the petitioner in the commission of the offences. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner is absconding and could not be arrested despite several raid conducted at his premises and consequently NBWs were issued against him and that being so, there was no requirement of issue of notice under section 160 Cr. P.C. to him.

5. The fact that there was some business transaction between the petitioner and Aggarwals and the later owed some money to the petitioner and on account of that a FIR under section 406/420 IPC was registered against them at Nai Mandi, Muzzarnagar on 04.02.2009, could not be said to be the reason for registration of FIR against the petitioner and co- accused persons as a counter-blast. The said FIR was registered against Aggarwals more than 5 months before the incident. On the other hand the non payment of the amount by Aggarwals to the petitioner could also be the proper ground for the commission of offences by the accused persons. The case of Ram Saran (supra) relied upon was on its own facts wherein the anticipatory bail was granted as there were two cross FIRs against the parties registered on the same day. In the given fact situation the FIR against the petitioner was found to be counter-blast. That judgment of Single Bench is not applicable to the present case. Similarly, the case of Amarjeet Singh (supra) relied upon was also on its own facts of business dealings between the parties where recovery suit was pending and from the facts situation it was found that the FIR was a counter-blast of the recovery suit filed by the complainant. That was also of no help to the petitioner. The case of Parmanand Saini (supra) was

also not applicable to the present case inasmuch as the petitioner in the said case was already on anticipatory bail and was granted regular bail. The case of Siri Krishan Dass (supra) was entirely on different facts and was not at all applicable to the present case. In any case, in the said case the learned Single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court relied upon certain judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, observing that power under section 438 Cr. P.C. is of extra-ordinary in nature and is supposed to be exercised in exceptional cases. It was observed that it is the responsibility of this Court that balance must be struck so as to uphold the dignity of the law and to see whether the interest of justice demands custodial interrogation or not. It was observed that if the custodial interrogation was necessary in the public interest, then the custody of such person must be given to the IO so that investigation could be not be impeded or disturbed or blocked, irrespective of the fact that a person enjoys a status in the society or that he had been enjoying the political power.

6. Moving further to the facts, it would be noted that though much credence could not be given to the statement of Manoj Aggarwal recorded under section 161 Cr. P.C. in view of the statement made by him under section 164 Cr. P.C. before the Magistrate, but in that statement also it is gathered he remained confined in a room at Rana Paper Mill and was taken by the Police on 19.9.2009. It is seen that in his statement under section 164 Cr. P.C. recorded on 11.09.2009, he categorically stated that on 07.07.2009, he was kidnapped by Manish Sharma along with two more persons in his Santro Car. The guns were aimed at his head as well as abdomen. A handkerchief having some intoxicating

drug/liquid was also put on his nose and he had become unconscious. Thereafter, he was taken to Rana Papers Mill and was produced before the petitioner, Noor Salim Rana. At the instance of Noor Salim Rana, he was beaten and his ring, mobile phone, gold chain and Kada and cash of Rs. 2.3 lacs were snatched. He was confined in a room and tortured continuously for 63 days. He stated that thereafter some police officials had come for inquiry and when they were returning, he had raised a noise from the window of the room where he was confined and he was thereafter got released by the police officials. From this it would be seen that he has clearly named the petitioner. When the premises of the petitioner were raided by the police repeatedly and he was found absconding, NBWs were issued against him. His involvement in the commission of the offences was apparently established from the complaint and also statement under section 164 Cr. P.C. and also during investigation and that being so there was no requirement of issue of notice under section 160 Cr. P.C.

7. In view of above discussion and while evaluating the entire available material carefully, the role of the petitioner in the commission of the offences is clearly comprehended. It is trite law that while considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, the balance has to be struck between two things namely no prejudice is caused to the free, fair and full investigation and that there should also be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustifiable detention of the accused. It is also trite law that where custodial interrogation of the accused is required in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the provisions of section 438 Cr.P.C. should not be invoked in favour of such accused.

8. It is also to be noted that an application for anticipatory bail on similar grounds was also filed by the petitioner which came to be dismissed vide detailed order by the ASJ on 7.4.2012. There is no change of any fact or circumstance since then.

9. Having regard to the entire factual matrix, the petitioner does not deserve to be released on anticipatory bail. Rather, it is a case of his custodial interrogation since all the accused are absconding and the recovery of the items of Manoj Aggarwal, allegedly snatched from him, was still to be effected.

10. For all these reasons, the petition is hereby dismissed.

M.L. MEHTA, J.

APRIL 27, 2012 awanish