Delhi High Court
Jitender @ Kala vs State on 19 March, 2020
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on : 04.03.2020
% Pronounced on :19.03.2020
+ BAIL APPLN. 202/2020
JITENDER @ KALA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Maninder Singh, Mr. Ajay
Kumar Pipaniya, Ms. Smriti Asmita, Ms.
Pallavi Pipaniya, Dr. Anurupita Kaur,
Advocates
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Rajni Gupta, APP for the
State with SI Ashish Sharma, PS : Burari.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
ORDER
1. This is an application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. read
with Section 482 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner for grant of
anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 371/2019 under Sections
387/120 B IPC registered at Police Station Burari.
2. Briefly stated, the present FIR was registered on the basis
of the complaint of Subhash (Complainant), filed by him at
Police Station Burari vide DD No. 76 B. It is alleged by the
complainant in his complaint that he had received a call from
Mobile No. 8448343324 on his mobile No. 9211114831 at
around 3:10 p.m. in which the caller claimed himself to be a
member of Tillu Tajpuria Gang and allegedly demanded an
extortion money of Rs 20 Lakhs till Tuesday and if he would fail
to make the payment, they will kill him.
3. After the registration of the present FIR bearing No.
371/2019 U/s 387 IPC investigation went underway and during
investigation CDR and CAF were obtained and it was revealed
that the SIM of service provider Airtel has been obtained on the
fake ID and was used from Tihar Jail. The CDR of the alleged
mobile number was further analyzed and its location was found
static at Tihar Jail since 1st of May 2019. During investigation,
another complainant came to police station stating that he also
received extortion call from Mobile No. 8448343324 on
18.10.2019 and 9899316782. The CDR of alleged mobile No.
8448343324 was analyzed during further course of investigation
and it was revealed that the Mobile No. 8860777265 &
8882648132 was in frequent touch with the alleged mobile No.
8448343324.
4. The subscriber of the Mobile No. 8860777265 &
8882648132 has disclosed that he had provided the information
of both the complainants to the alleged persons Surender @ Bitta
& Jitender @ Kale (present petitioner) who were lodged in the
jail at the time of commission of offence. He also disclosed that
he has provided the contact information to the accused persons as
they promised him of goods share in the extortion amount.
During further course of investigation, one Anil Kumar who
was also in touch with the alleged mobile number was also
examined who stated that accused Surender @ Bitta & Jitender
@ Kala (present petitioner) are his relatives and accused
Surender @ Bitta called him from the alleged mobile number.
5. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the petitioner, Ld. APP
for the state and have also perused the status report filed by the
state.
6. It is urged by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that as per
the prosecution, the extortion calls were made from Tihar Jail so
the mobile phones are to be recovered from Tihar Jail and there
is no role of the petitioner in this regard. He further argued that
there is no answer to the question that who has provided the cell
phone to the petitioner inside the jail and how can the inmates
make extortion calls when they are behind the bars. He further
argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and his
name does not figure in the FIR. He has relied upon Yogesh Vs.
State of UP, Bail Application No. 9084/2014 to bring home the
point that if the accused is found to be entitled to bail, he cannot
be denied bail on the ground of his criminal history. He has
further relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court titled as
Satlingappa Mehtre V. State of Maharashtra and Ors., AIR 2011
SC 312.
7. On the other hand, it is urged by the Ld. APP for the state
that the allegations against the petitioner are grave and serious in
nature. She further argued that the petitioner is involved in
making extortion calls to the complainant from Tihar Jail. Ld.
APP further submitted that the petitioner is himself a criminal
and is a history sheeter of P.S. Alipur and active member of
Tillu gang. She further argued that the custodial interrogation of
the petitioner is required for the recovery of mobile/SIM Card
used in the offence and for obtaining the voice sample of the
petitioner for comparison with the recorded voice of the person
who had called the complainant and made a demand for
extortion.
8. Having heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as Ld.
APP for the State, I find that the allegations against the petitioner
are grave and serious in nature in regard to making extortion calls
to the complainant from Tihar Jail while he was in custody in
other case. It has been argued by the Ld. counsel for the
petitioner that there are some un-answered questions as to who
has provided the cell phone to the petitioner inside the jail and
how can inmates make extortion calls when they are behind the
bars.
9. Now this is for the petitioner to answer during the course
of the interrogation and in case other persons are found involved,
the law then will take its own course against them. There is no
dispute with regard to the propositions of law laid down in the
judgment Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and
Ors., ("supra") relied upon by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner
but each case revolves around its own peculiar facts and
circumstances. Recovery of the mobile phone and the SIM card
are to be effected and the voice samples of the petitioner are also
to be taken for comparison. One also cannot lose sight of the
fact that as per the investigation the petitioner is a habitual
criminal and a history sheeter and member of notorious Tillu
gang. As per the IO NBWs have also been obtained against the
petitioner. No ground for bail is made out, the application is,
therefore dismissed.
10. Nothing stated hereinabove shall tantamount to the
expression of any opinion on the merits of the case.
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J
MARCH 19, 2020
Sumant
