Bharti Khanna vs State
2020 Latest Caselaw 1696 Del

$~5
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                   Date of decision: 23.03.2020
+       BAIL APPLN. 765/2020
        BHARTI KHANNA                                     ..... Petitioner
                    Through              Mr.Surinder Anand, Adv.

                           versus

        STATE                                               ..... Respondent
                           Through       Mr. Panna Lal Sharma, APP for State.
                                         SI Sanjeev Kumar PS Neb Sarai.
                                         Mr.K.K. Manan, Sr. Adv. with
                                         Mr.Puneet Parihar, Adv. for
                                         complainant.

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

                           J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

Crl. M.A. 5754/2020

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application is disposed of.

Bail Appln.765/2020

3. Present petition is filed under section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of

anticipatory bail in pursuance to FIR No.100/2020 registered at Police

Station Neb Sarai for the offences punishable under section 387/506/34 IPC.

4. As stated in the present petition that as per the allegations, one Vijay

Singh Chauhan who is resident of 137/4, Lane No.1, Anupam Garden,

Sainik Farm, New Delhi-110068 has stated in his complaint that he is

handicapped with a vision problem due to which he cannot see and is

bedridden. He got a call on his mobile phone number 9821954832 at 11.44

pm on 09.03.2020 and caller refused to give correct information about his

name and identity on his mobile phone and asked for Rs.5 crore as ransom

otherwise threatened to kill the complainant and to kidnap his grown-up

daughters namely Pari and Pihu from their school i.e. Laxman Public

School. When the caller gave such authentic information about the daughters

and their school to the complainant, he got afraid of the caller and requested

him to share his identity and also enquired where did the caller get his

mobile number and information of his family. Said caller replied that he got

the mobile number and requisite information from the petitioner, who

happened to be employee of the complainant as computer operator during

2016-2017. The petitioner had all information of the complainant's financial

transactions because she used to take data while in service. After the

aforesaid conversation between caller and the complainant, the call was

disconnected for few minutes and the caller again called and stated to the

complainant that he is CBI Official and in case money is not given, he

would implicate the complainant in some false case.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that

petitioner remains in the services of complainant w.e.f. 2016-2017 and she

left the job because her salary was not paid for quite some months. The

complainant has given the mobile number of the petitioner which is

9811200124, which does not belong to her. As a matter of fact when the

petitioner joined the services of complainant in the year 2016, she was

provided one Mobile Phone No. 9811200124 for her official as well as for

personal use. The above said number is registered in the name of

complainant himself and the petitioner surrendered the said mobile

telephone to the complainant when she left the job in the year 2017.

6. Learned counsel further submits that the complaint was registered on

09.03.2020 at about 00.11 hrs and the caller was arrested on 10.03.2020 at

about 2 p.m. It appears that the caller of the ransom was very well known to

the complainant and was aware of the whereabouts of the complainant and

he has mentioned the name of the petitioner in the present FIR intentionally,

deliberately and with malafide intention to harass and humiliate her.

7. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner received one

notice under section 41-A Cr.P.C from the Sub Inspector - Sanjeev Kumar,

Police Station Neb Sarai, New Delhi on 14.03.2020 vide Diary No.743

wherein she was directed to appear before the aforesaid officer on

16.03.2020 at 2 p.m. In compliance of the said notice, the petitioner went to

join the investigation alongwith her counsel, however, not a single question

regarding the facts of the case was put to the petitioner and she was directed

to write down whatever she knew about the case, which she did. Petitioner

was allowed to move out of the police station with her counsel at 6.30 p.m.

The conduct of the SI Sanjeev Kumar was remained hostile to the petitioner

and she was humiliated and harassed at the hands of such police officer at

the police station.

8. As per status report, during investigation, supplementary statement

under section 161 Cr.P.C. of complainant Vijay Singh Chauhan was

recorded, wherein, he stated that approximately 4-5 years ago, Ms.Bharti

Khanna, petitioner herein, was working in his office. She was having

complete knowledge of his business and family members as she used to visit

his house on family functions. After some time, he closed his office due to

vision loss and she left the job. He further stated that one month ago, one

Gauri Kant Dixit (co-accused) contacted him over phone and stated that he

is speaking from BJP Party office and, thereafter, he stated that Ms.Bharti

Khanna has filed a complaint before him in relation to a matter of Rs. 4-5

Crore. In turn, complainant clarified that he has not taken any money from

Ms.Bharti Khanna. Thereafter, accused Gauri Kant Dixit called in the

intervening night of 08/09.03.2020 and extended threat to life to him for the

purpose of extortion. Petitioner in connivance with Gauri Kant Dixit wants

to extort money from complainant. During investigation, CDR/CAF of

accused's mobile phone No. 9821954832 through which the calls were made

to complainant over his mobile phone No. 9810265162 were obtained. The

ownership of this mobile phone number was found in the name of co-

accused "Gauri Kant Dixit C/o Brijesh Tyagi, House No. 2, Radha Kunj,

Nandgram, near Mother India, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh". Thereafter, the

said co-accused was arrested from House No.1109, I Block, KW Shrasthi

Apartment, Raj Nagar Extension, Ghaziabad, U.P. He was interrogated

wherein, he disclosed that he is connected with 'Ahinsa Dal Party' and

approximately 4-5 months ago, he met with one Ms.Bharti Khanna,

petitioner herein. Both started conversation with each other. Meanwhile,

Ms.Bharti Khanna informed him that earlier she was working with

complainant, who lives in Sainik Farms, New Delhi. She further informed

that said Chauhan is engaged in the business of real estate and a large

amount is likely to be received by him. On this, Mr. Gauri Kant Dixit

gathered information from her about the family and children of complainant

and both decided to extort money from complainant by putting him into fear.

In furtherance to their plan, Gauri Kant Dixit called the complainant and

misrepresented that he is calling from BJP Headquarters and enquired from

complainant about the matter of Ms. Bharti Khanna. Thereafter, both

decided to put the complainant into fear and on 08.03.2020, the accused

Gauri Kant Dixit called the complainant from his mobile phone No.

9821954832 to the complainant's mobile phone No. 9810265162 and

demanded Rs. 5 Crore from him. He threatened the complainant that if the

demands are not met, he will kidnap the daughters of complainant.

9. During search, a mobile phone of the brand OPPO, Blue Colour,

IMEI No.866778045249376 & 866778045249368 containing SIM Card No.

9821954832, which was used in the commission of offence was recovered

from his possession.

10. On 11.03.2020, friend of accused Gauri Kant Dixit namely Piyush

came at Police Station and provided the recording regarding conversation

took place between accused Gauri Kant and complainant on the date of

incident. Thereafter, accused Gauri Kant Dixit was further interrogated,

whereupon he disclosed that on the date of incident i.e. 08.03.2020, he first

made call to Ms. Bharti Khanna and thereafter, he made conference call to

the complainant and extended threat to him. He further disclosed that

Ms.Bharti Khanna was hearing all the conversation that took place with

complainant.

11. Keeping in view calls between petitioner herein and co-accused Gauri

Kant Dixit and the complainant on 08/09.03.2020, it is established that

during conversation, co-accused Gauri Kant Dixit and accused Bharti

Khanna was on the line and thereafter made a conference call to

complainant. The phone was answered by complainant's wife who asked

accused about reason to call at night. In turn, said Gauri Kant Dixit asked

her to give the phone to her husband. Thereafter, an argument took place

between them and accused Gauri Kant Dixit misbehaved with complainant's

wife and used highly abusive language and extended threat.

12. As per the status report, call recording are highly sensitive wherein

co-accused Gauri Kant Dixit and Bharti Khanna, petitioner herein, discussed

with each other about the way to put threat upon complainant with common

intention to extort money from him. Thereafter, in a pre-planned manner,

accused Gauri Kant Dixit made phone call to complainant in midnight and

extended threat with sole motive to extort money from him.

13. It is pertinent to mention here that the entire conversation between co-

accused Gauri Kant Dixit and complainant was heard by accused Bharti

Khanna as she was on conference call. On the basis of these conversations,

section 34 IPC was added in the case. Since, accused Gauri Kant Dixit, had

misbehaved with complainant's wife and used highly abusive language with

intent to outrage her modesty, therefore, section 509 IPC was also added in

the case.

14. Keeping in view the serious allegations against the petitioner and the

fact that her custodial interrogation is required for recovery of the mobile

phone of petitioner to establish whether she was on conference call with co-

accused Gauri Kant Dixit and complainant herein, this Court is not inclined

to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

15. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) JUDGE MARCH 23, 2020/ab