Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rohtash And Another vs State Of Haryana on 30 April, 2024
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058830
2024:PHHC:058830
CRM-M-47027-2022 (O & M) ::1::
(101)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-47027-2022 (O & M)
Date of decision:30.04.2024
Rohtash and anr. ...... Petitioners
V/s
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. J.S. Toor, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. K.D.S. Hooda, Advocate, for the complainant.
*****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)
The prayer in the present petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is
for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.253 dated
27.05.2022 under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC registered at Police
Station Urban Estate, Hisar, District Hisar.
2. The present FIR came to be registered at the instance of Manju
Kumari and reads as under:-
"A 12. F.I.R. contents: To the S.H.O. Sahib, Police Station,
Urban Estate, Hisar, Subject: Application for taking legal
action against (1) Rohtash Bidasra s/o Dharampal R/o Gadrha,
Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan, Mob.
No.63764-50411 (2) Bhajan Lal S/o Sh.Ratan Singh, caste
Dhanak r/o Ajitpura, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh,
Mob. No.6350282868, sir, it is respectfully submitted that I
Manju wife of Jaiprakash @ Pawan am resident of village
Sagada, Police Station Bhirani, Tehsil Bhadra, District
Hanumangarh, Rajasthan and I am a household lady/house-
wife. I have one daughter of the age of 10 months. My husband
is having one brother and a sister. My husband was running
Mehan Diagnostic Lab in Ajitpura, Tehsil, Bhadra, District
1 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058830
2024:PHHC:058830
CRM-M-47027-2022 (O & M) ::2::
Hanumangarh and my JETH (brother-in-law) Vishnu is running
a lab at Surya Hospital, Bhiwani. My husband Jaiprakash @
Pawan was in frustration since many days. On asking by me
repeatedly, he informed that Rohtash Bidasra and Bhajanlal
used to harass and humiliate him by saying that, 'we should get
you implicated in a scandal/scam and get closed your lab and
should get done work of some of their known in this lab'. On
09.05.2022, there was a marriage of son of my BUA named
Prem Devi wife of Dharan Singh of village Chainpura. Tehsil
Rajgarh organized at Chainpura. I had come to Chainpura on
01.05.2022 for attending the above mentioned marriage. I had
come to Chainpura on 01.05.2022 for attending the above
mentioned marriage and on 09.05.2022, my husband
Jaiprakash @ Pawan son of Krishan Kumar resident of Sagra
had also come to attend the marriage. After marriage
ceremony, on 10.05.2022 my husband had returned to Ajitpura
by saying that he had to run/look after his lab and I had come
to my parental house situated at village Rajpuria, Tehsil
Rajgarh. I had a talk with my husband for 1-2 times after I
came to my parental house. On 12.05.2022, at 04.08 p.m., 1
received a phone call of my husband, who informed me that he
is quite sad and he was talking in a very sad voice. He while
crying informed me on phone that accused No.1 and 2 have
been blackmailing me, due to which he was quite frustrated.
Thereafter, the phone was disconnected. I immediately made
repeated phone calls, but he didn't pick/attend my phone call.
Thereafter, again his phone call was received at 04.41 p.m. and
my husband had informed me that I am quite upset and
frustrated at the hands of above mentioned accused persons as
they are blackmailing me and usurping an amount of Rs.5.7
lakhs. These both accused persons shall be responsible for my
death. I have been dying by eating sulphas tablets because of
them. Conversation between me and my husband was recorded
in my mobile phone, which is being produced by me before you
vide a pendrive. I have been producing recording of
2 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058830
2024:PHHC:058830
CRM-M-47027-2022 (O & M) ::3::
conversation between me and my husband in the same manner
it was done. My husband had committed suicide on 12.05.2022
by eating sulphas tablets at Suncity Hotel, Hisar by getting fed
up from the above mentioned accused persons and on account
of blackmailing. In this regard, my husband had informed this
very above mentioned same fact from his mobile no.95882-
21347 to Devraj Meena, an official of the Police Station
Bhirani on his mobile no.98294-76292 that the above
mentioned accused persons have been blackmailing him, due to
which he is going to commit suicide. Thereafter, the above
mentioned Sh.Devraj Meena gave information from his mobile
no.98294-76292 to my CHACHA SASUR (paternal father-in-
law) named Sh.Krishan Kumar son of Kapoor Singh, caste Jaat
resident of Sagra on his phone No.97728-76292 to the effect
that Jaiprakash @ Pawan is going to commit suicide and as
such save him. My CHACHA SASUR (paternal father-in-law)
talked from his phone number with Jaiprakash @ Pawan on his
phone number, so that he can persuade him. On phone
Jaiprakash @ Pawan had informed that at present he is present
in room No.102 of Suncity Hotel, Hisar and he has already
eaten sulphas tablets. Thereafter, my CHACHA SASUR
(paternal father-in-law) named Sh.Krishan Kumar son of
Kapoor Singh and my father-in-law Krishan Kumar son of
Sh.Nanuram etc along with other family members had left for
Hisar. In Suncity Hotel, Hisar they came to know that my
husband had been taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar for his
treatment, where they had declared my husband as dead. I and
my family members had received news relating to death of my
husband. I suffered severe shock. I regained consciousness after
a period of about 2-3 days. Thereafter, I informed my family
and my in-law family members about the conversation/talk
taken place between me and my husband on phone to the effect
that the above mentioned accused persons are responsible for
the death of Jaiprakash @ Pawan. Thus, it is requested by
submitting application that strict legal action may please be
3 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058830
2024:PHHC:058830
CRM-M-47027-2022 (O & M) ::4::
taken against the accused persons by registering a case against
them and justice be done to me and my daughter, for which I
shall be highly grateful to you. Dated: 27.05.2022, Sd/- Manju
Kumari, Applicant Manju Kumari Wie late Sh.Jaiprakash @
Pawan R/o village Sagra, Tehsil Bhadra, Hanumangarh,
District Rajasthan, Mob. No.9582144356-x-x--x--x-".
3. During the course of investigation, the statement of Constable
Dev Raj of Police Station Bhirani (Rajasthan) was recorded in which he
stated that the deceased-Jai Parkash @ Pawan had made a call to the Police
Station, Bhirani and had informed them that he (Jai Parkash @
Pawan/deceased) wanted to commit suicide on account of harassment of
blackmailing by the petitioners and that they had grabbed Rs.5/7 lakhs from
him. The deceased, however, had stated that the girl was not to be harassed.
Constable Dev Raj provided the recording of their conversation.
The statement of Kasak r/o Ajeetpura was recorded in which
she stated that she was in relationship with deceased-Jai Parkash @ Pawan
and the petitioners came to know about the said fact. They asked her
(Kasak) to maintain contacts with them or bring her sister to them
(petitioners) and on this pretext, they started blackmailing her and the
deceased. Bhajan Lal-petitioner No.2 had been demanding money from the
deceased and had threatened him to get his lab closed. She also stated that
an altercation also took place between her and petitioner No.2-Bhajan Lal
one day prior to the suicide of the deceased.
During the course of investigation, the bank account of
petitioner No.2-Bhajan Lal was examined and it was found that a sum of
Rs.4,25,000/- (approximately) had been deposited between January 2022 to
28.04.2022 which deposit remained unexplained.
4 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058830
2024:PHHC:058830
CRM-M-47027-2022 (O & M) ::5::
Statements of Randhir r/o Balsmand, Vinod Kumar r/o Sagra
and Islam r/o Ajeet Pura were recorded in which they stated that the
deceased had taken various amount of money from them. They also stated
that the deceased had sold his Swift car for a sum of Rs.1,30,000/-. The said
amount had not been deposited in any bank account nor had been given to
his wife (Manju Kumari-complainant). All of this showed that the money
received by the deceased was paid to the petitioner No.2-Bhajan Lal on
account of blackmailing.
During the course of investigation, the mobile phone of the
deceased was examined and it was found that petitioner No.2 had threatened
the deceased via social media and had sent him photographs in which he
(petitioner No.2-Bhajan Lal) was seen with weapons. Attempts were made
to make video calls to the deceased to disturb his family life. The
conversation between the deceased and his wife was also extracted from the
phone wherein the deceased is heard stating that Rohtash @ Rohas
Bhidasara (petitioner No.1) was responsible for his death as they had
extorted more than Rs.5 lakhs from him.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the
petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. In fact, the
deceased was running a laboratory in village Ajeetpura, Tehsil Bhadra,
District Hanumangarh and used to stay in that village. He had entered into a
relationship with a girl, namely, Kasak and this relationship was frowned
upon by the villagers including petitioner No.2 who raised an objection. A
Panchayat had been convened on 24.04.2022 in which the deceased had
been summoned and he had admitted before petitioner No.2 and others that
he would break his relationship with the said girl. This is why petitioner
5 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058830
2024:PHHC:058830
CRM-M-47027-2022 (O & M) ::6::
No.2 had been implicated in the present case. As regards petitioner No.1, he
contends that he was running a medical shop and being involved in the
medical profession, he was known to the deceased. Other than that,
petitioner No.1 and the deceased and no connection. He had been
implicated on account of his good relations with the family of petitioner
No.2. He further contends that taking the allegations to be correct, no
offence whatsoever is made out, moreso, when there was a significant delay
of more than 10 days in getting registered the instant FIR. The petitioners
had otherwise joined investigation and had co-operated with the same.
Therefore, they were entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail.
5. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, while
referring to the replies/status reports dated 17.04.2023 and 19.03.2024
contends that the investigation conducted so far, clearly establishes that the
petitioners were blackmailing the deceased and extorting money from him.
The statement of the girl in question had been recorded in which she had
categorically stated that both the petitioners wanted to maintain relationship
either with her or her sister. Further, the petitioners were extorting money
from the deceased and a sum of Rs.4,25,000/- stood deposited in the account
of petitioner No.2-Bhajan Lal which deposit remains unexplained, moreso,
when he was a simple agriculturist and could not possibly have generated
this amount of wealth. The examination of the mobile phone of the
deceased had shown that the accused persons were threatening him by
sending him photographs showing themselves to be armed. Video calls were
being made late at night to disturb his mental peace. There was a recording
of conversation between the deceased and his wife to the effect that the
petitioner No.1 was responsible for his death as they had extorted more than
6 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058830
2024:PHHC:058830
CRM-M-47027-2022 (O & M) ::7::
Rs.5 lakhs from him. He contends that though the petitioners had joined the
investigation, they were stone-walling the same by giving evasive answers.
Therefore, their custodial interrogation was certainly required. Even
otherwise, as the offence was prima facie established, the question of grant
of anticipatory bail to the petitioners did not arise.
6. The learned counsel for the complainant has reiterated the
arguments raised by the learned counsel for the State and submits that it was
a case where the offence was prima facie established not only from the FIR
but from the investigation conducted so far. Therefore, the petitioners were
not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Sumitha Pradeep
Vs. Arun Kumar C.K. & Anr. 2022(4) RCR (Criminal) 977', has held that
merely because custodial interrogation was not required by itself could not
be a ground to grant anticipatory bail. The first and the foremost thing the
Court hearing the anticipatory bail application is to consider is the prima
facie case against the accused. The relevant extract of the judgment is
reproduced hereinbelow:-
"It may be true, as pointed out by learned counsel
appearing for Respondent No.1, that charge-sheet has already
been filed. It will be unfair to presume on our part that the
Investigating Officer does not require Respondent No.1 for
custodial interrogation for the purpose of further investigation.
Be that as it may, even assuming it a case where
Respondent No.1 is not required for custodial interrogation, we
are satisfied that the High Court ought not to have granted
discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.
7 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058830
2024:PHHC:058830
CRM-M-47027-2022 (O & M) ::8::
We are dealing with a matter wherein the original
complainant (appellant herein) has come before this Court
praying that the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court to
the accused should be cancelled. To put it in other words, the
complainant says that the High Court wrongly exercised its
discretion while granting anticipatory bail to the accused in a
very serious crime like POCSO and, therefore, the order passed
by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to the accused
should be quashed and set aside. In many anticipatory bail
matters, we have noticed one common argument being
canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and,
therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to
be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial
interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone
would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial
interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be
considered along with other grounds while deciding an
application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many
cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may
not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie
case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked and
he should be granted anticipatory bail. The first and foremost
thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application
should consider is the prima facie case put up against the
accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be
looked into along with the severity of the punishment.
Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline
custodial interrogation. However, even if custodial
interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot
be a ground to grant anticipatory bail."
9. In the instant case, a perusal of the FIR would show clear and
specific allegations being levelled against the petitioners. The statements
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the girl-Kasak would show that the petitioners
8 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058830
2024:PHHC:058830
CRM-M-47027-2022 (O & M) ::9::
wanted to maintain a physical relationship with either her or her sister,
though, she was involved with the deceased and they were extorting money
from the deceased and threatening her (Kasak) as well. The statement of
Constable Dev Raj would clearly show that the deceased had called him and
leveled allegations of extortion against the petitioners and stated that he
(deceased) would commit suicide. Similarly, the statements of Randhir,
Vinod Kumar and Islam from whom the deceased borrowed money to hand
over the same to the petitioners clearly establishes prima facie, veracity of
the prosecution case against the petitioners that they had extorted money
from the deceased. Further, though, the petitioners have joined
investigation, they have been evasive and have been stone-walling the same.
Therefore, their custodial interrogation is required not only because the
offence is prima facie established but also to take the investigation to its
logical conclusion.
10. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petition.
Therefore, the same stands dismissed.
11. However, it is made clear that the observations made in this
order are only for the purpose of deciding this bail application and the Trial
Court is free to adjudicate upon the matter on the basis of the evidence lead
before it uninfluenced by any such observations made.
( JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
JUDGE
April 30, 2024
sukhpreet
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
9 of 9
