Criminal Misc. No.M-9230 of 2014 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No.M-9230 of 2014 Date of Decision:-25.4.2014 Deepali Bassi ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.R.S.Cheema, Senior Advocate with Mr.Pawan Girdhar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.A.S.Grewal, Addl. AG Punjab for the respondent-State. Mr.Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate with Mr.Vikas Mohan Gupta & Ms.Sonal Datta, Advocates for the complainant. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.
(Oral) The matrix of the facts & material,, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the instant petition for the grant of concession of regular bail, filed by the petitioner and emanating from the record, as claimed by the prosecution, is that on 13.7.2013, Munish Kumar, son of complainant Harminder Pal (for brevity “the complainant”.) was going to Ludhiana in his BMW car, bearing registration No.PB-10-DN- 6575. Him Lal son of D.R.Sharma was its driver. Accused Tony and Himmat Singh, having walkie-talkie in their hands, started following the indicated car on their motorcycle. As soon as, the car reached under the bridge of Mallipur situated at GT Road, in the meantime, the accused motorcyclists, at once, came in front of their car. The remaining accused were already present there in police uniform. Accused Gurarpan Chauhan s/o Surinder Pal was wearing the uniform of Sub Inspector, whereas accused Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.04.28 11:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M-9230 of 2014 2 Amit Kumar, Saheb Chandel and Sonu Chaurasia were in Punjab police uniform. They suddenly stopped and asked the driver to show the documents of the car. The accused were armed with deadly weapons, arms and ammunition. They thrashed the victim Munish Kumar and Him Lal and forcibly put them in their white coloured Swift car, bearing registration No.PB-10-DA-0665 and had driven away the car towards Khanna side. Munish Kumar tried to raise alarm and make a phone call to his father. Thereafter, accused Sonu Chaurasia gave a kirch blow on his neck. He (Munish Kumar) had caught hold the kirch, whereupon his both hands suffered cuts and his clothes were smeared with blood. The accused had put monkey caps on their faces. They took them to some Farm house and demanded a ransom of ` 5 crores from complainant Harminder Pal, father of Munish Kumar. Faced with the grave situation, the complainant paid the indicated ransom amount to the accused. Thereafter, they freed Munish Kumar and Him Lal from their illegal detention on the night intervening 14/15.7.2013.
2. Sequelly, the case of the prosecution further proceeds that the petitioner had twice come to the Farm house (place of occurrence), who is already known to Munish Kumar. She had repeated conversation with the main accused from the very inception of the crime through SMS & telephone calls and partner in the amount of ransom.
3. Leveling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events in detail, in all, the prosecution, inter-alia, claimed that the petitioner and her other indicated co-accused, have hatched a deep-rooted criminal conspiracy, kidnapped Munish Kumar, son and Him Lal, driver, of the complainant for ransom, illegally detained, caused injuries, attempted to Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.04.28 11:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M-9230 of 2014 3 murder, threatened them with dire consequences of elimination in case the ransom amount was not paid to the accused and having received the ransom amount of ` 5 crores, they released the victim from their illegal detention. In the backgrounds of these allegations and in the wake of statement of the complainant, the present criminal case was registered against the accused, vide FIR No.72 dated 14.7.2013 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 148, 307, 323, 324, 364- A, 171, 120-B, 506, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201 read with Section 149 IPC, Section 25 of the Arms Act and Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 by the police of Police Station Doraha, District Ludhiana, in the manner depicted here-in-above.
4. Having exercised her right of bail and remained unsuccessful before the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, now the petitioner has preferred the instant petition for the grant of concession of regular bail, invoking the provisions of section 439 Cr.PC in the pointed criminal case in this Court.
5. Notice of the petition was issued to the State.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present petition for regular bail in this context.
7. Ex facie, the arguments of learned Senior counsel that there is no direct evidence of conspiracy against the petitioner on record, she is in custody since 16.7.2013 and as she has been falsely implicated in the instant case, therefore, she is entitled to the benefit of regular bail, are not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well.
8. As is evident from the record that very serious and direct Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.04.28 11:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M-9230 of 2014 4 allegations are assigned to the petitioner that she along with her other co- accused, have hatched a deep-rooted criminal conspiracy, kidnapped Munish Kumar, son and Him Lal, driver of the complainant for ransom, illegally detained, caused injuries, attempted to murder, threatened them with dire consequences of elimination in case the ransom amount was not paid to the accused and received the ransom amount of ` 5 crores for releasing the victim. It is not a matter of dispute that the offence of criminal conspiracy, punishable u/s 120-B IPC, is an independent offence and some general evidence pertaining to the conspiracy would be sufficient to form part of charge of conspiracy in the final police report (challan). As a matter of fact, some connecting link or connecting factor somewhere here and there in the evidence would be good enough against the conspirator. Sequelly, the stage of pre-trial and the stage to establish the guilt of conspiracy after the trial, cannot possibly be equated and placed at par. There is a very less possibility of direct evidence and the evidence of hatching such criminal conspiracy has to be gathered from variety of facts, situations and circumstances, oozing out from the evidence brought on record by the prosecution at the time of final conclusion of the trial. The reliance in this regard can be placed to a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case Hardeo Singh v. State of Bihar and others AIR2000Supreme Court 2245.
9. As indicated here-in-above, there is sufficient positive evidence on record that petitioner was in touch and repeatedly communicated with her other co-accused, from the very inception of the crime through SMS and telephone calls. Not only that, having kidnapped the victims for ransom, the accused took them to some Farm house (place of occurrence). There is a positive evidence on record in this regard. It has been specifically Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.04.28 11:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M-9230 of 2014 5 mentioned in the statements (Annexure P8) of victim Him Lal, driver and (Annexure P9) of Munish Kumar that the petitioner used to come to the place of their detention and shared the booty of ransom. Therefore, it cannot possibly be saith at this stage that there is no evidence of conspiracy against the petitioner on record, as contrary urged on her behalf.
10. As regards, the slow progress of the case is concerned, the bare perusal of the certified copies of the zimni orders dated 3.1.2014 and 20.1.2014 would reveal that charges could not be framed by the trial Court and the case was adjourned on account of requests of defence counsel. In this manner, the petitioner cannot take the benefit of her own wrong/fault in this relevant connection.
11. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that the tendency and frequency of kidnapping and threatening innocent persons with dire consequences of elimination, for the purpose of ransom, by such accused, have been tremendously increasing day-by-day, which is adversely affecting the social fabric of the society. It needs to be curbed with heavy hands. Therefore, taking into consideration the indicated direct and serious allegations of commission of heinous offences by the petitioner, to me, she is not entitled to be released on bail in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
12. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties.
13. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of main case, the instant petition for regular bail filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed as such. Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.04.28 11:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M-9230 of 2014 6 14. Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, on merits of the main case, in any manner, as the same has been so recorded for the limited purpose of deciding the present petition for regular bail only. Sd/- (Mehinder Singh Sullar) Judge 25.4.2014 AS Whether to be referred to reporter ?. Yes/No Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.04.28 11:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh