Mohd. Moin @ Munna vs State ( Nct Of Delhi)
2015 Latest Caselaw 8948 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                      Judgment delivered on : December 02, 2015
+     BAIL APPLN. 2555/2015
      MOHD. MOIN @ MUNNA                               ..... Petitioner
                     Through:         Mr.Urooj A. Khan & Mr.Atul
                                      Chaturvedi, Advocates.
                          versus

      STATE ( NCT OF DELHI)                               ..... Respondent
                     Through:         Ms.Manjeet Arya, Additional Public
                                      Prosecutor for the State with Sub-
                                      Inspector Joginder, PS Gandhi Nagar.
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

                                   JUDGMENT

P.S.TEJI, J.

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 19.11.2015, passed by the learned

Special Judge 03, Karkardooma, Delhi, vide which the bail

application filed by the present petitioner has been rejected, the

petitioner has preferred the present bail application under Section 439

read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for

seeking bail in a case registered under FIR No.0658/2015 under

Section 387 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Gandhi Nagar, New

Delhi.

2. The prosecution case is based on the complaint of one Jai

Kumar Jain, who runs the business of pant and shirt from Shop

No.6745/6719, Janta Gali, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi - 110031 in the name

and style of J.K. Jain Hosiery and Trading House Brand (Sparky), and

stated in his statement that on 13.10.2015, one rickshaw puller -

Yameen, who used to bring and take material from his shop for the

last 6-7 months came to his show and gave one envelope, wherein it

was written that he has to pay Rs.5 crore and in case of refusal, his

children Timmy and Anju and their son will be killed. It is further

stated in complaint that he will also be killed in case this information

is given to any other person or to the police. In the said letter, the

reference of house, shop and farm house of the complainant were also

mentioned. The complainant was asked to send Rs.5 crore in the same

rickshaw after putting the money in a cartoon and not to follow the

rickshaw. Thereafter, the complainant came to the police station

alongwith the said letter and the case was registered.

3. Mr. Urooj A. Khan, counsel for the petitioner argued that the

petitioner is named in the present case at the instance of co-accused

Niyazul with malafide intention and ulterior motive to send the

petitioner behind the bar and ruin the image of the petitioner in front

of the complainant, as the petitioner has long standing business

relations for the last 10-15 years with the complainant. It is also

contended on behalf of the petitioner that during the course of

investigation, the rickshaw puller Yameen had refused to identify the

petitioner and specifically told the police that the sender was some

other person and not the person brought before him, i.e., the

petitioner. One Niyazul who also works for the complainant, was

missing and he belongs to the same village as that of the petitioner.

The police went to the native village of Niyazul and at the instance of

the petitioner, he was arrested. During interrogation, Niyazul stated

that he falsely disclosed the name of the petitioner as an accused in

the present case. It is also contended on behalf of the petitioner that

the petitioner is in business relation with the complainant and for the

said purpose the petitioner is running a factory in which about 100

employees are working, therefore there is no question that he will

commit such an offence against the person with whom he is working

and earning his bread and butter. According to the counsel for the

petitioner, the petitioner is a prospective candidate from the said

Village and he intended to contest the just completed local bodies

election in UP and the co-accused Niyazul is a member of the rival

group of the local politics and that is why he has deliberately or at the

instance of the police disclosed the name of the petitioner just to

harass and humiliate him. It is also urged that even as per the

prosecution story the alleged demand letter was written in the

handwriting of daughter of the co-accused Niyazul and not in the

hand writing of the petitioner. It is also urged on behalf of the

petitioner that the alleged demand letter has been seized by the police

and the handwriting of the petitioner is also taken for matching the

handwriting in the letter, however handwriting of the daughter of the

co-accused Niyazul is yet to be taken and thereafter the same will be

sent to FSL and it will take considerable time. It is further submitted

on behalf of the petitioner that it is the petitioner who cooperated with

the Investigating Officer if the case from the very beginning and

never tried to abscond or deviate the investigation in a wrong manner

and it is petitioner only who had gone to the village of co-accused

Niyazul in order to locate him and consequently he was arrested and

brought to Delhi. It is also contended that the antecedents of the

present petitioner are clean and clear and there is no case pending

against him in any court of law and he has deep roots in the society

and there is no chance that he will abscond in case he is released on

bail, therefore, the petitioner ought to be granted bail in the aforesaid

case.

4. To support the aforesaid contentions, counsel for the petitioner

placed reliance on the judgment of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar

and others, 2014 (3) JCC and the order dated 24th March 2014,

passed by this court in Crl. A. No.144/2006 titled as Tasim & Ors. vs.

State, NCT of Delhi.

5. To oppose the contentions raised by learned counsel for the

petitioner, Ms. Manjeet Arya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

for the State submitted that the petitioner is named by the co-accused

Niyazul and the proceedings are at initial stage therefore the petitioner

be not released on bail.

6. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the

petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State

and also gone through the material placed on record.

7. After considering the contents of the present petition as well as

the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, this Court is of the opinion

that in the alleged letter, threat to life of children of the complainant

as well as of the complainant was made, if money is not given to the

accused and there is another letter also and the fact that the petitioner

was the master mind of the case therefore, the petitioner does not

deserve to be released on bail at this stage. The issue as to whether the

rickshaw puller did not identify the present petitioner, the petitioner

being falsely implicated in the present case and the petitioner being a

prospective candidate from the Village to contest local bodies election

in UP and the co-accused Niyazul being the member of rival group of

local politics; the written demand letter was written by the present

petitioner or not, are to be determined during trial. It is also the fact

that the handwriting sample of the petitioner and the handwriting

sample of daughter of the co-accused Niyazul were sent to FSL but

the FSL report is still awaited. Since the trial is at initial stage

therefore, the tampering of the evidence cannot be ruled out.

8. So far as the reliance placed in the case of Tasim (supra), the

observations made in the said judgment were made while deciding the

appeal of the accused finally, however in the present case, the trial is

at initial stage, therefore the reliance placed by the petitioner is of no

substance at this stage.

9. With the above observations the bail application is dismissed.

However expression of any opinion hereinbefore may not be treated

as an expression on the merits of the case.

10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present

case, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner - Mohd. Moin @

Munna does not deserve the concession of bail in this case, at this

stage. Accordingly, the present application filed by the petitioner -

Mohd. Moin @ Munna is dismissed at this stage.

(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE DECEMBER 02, 2015 pkb