Rashid Khan v. State of Haryana and Another

ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. Dated Police Sta/on Sec/ons 504 26.10.2023 Parao, District Ambala 406, 420, 506 IPC

¶1The pe!!oner apprehending arrest in the FIR cap!oned above has come up before this Court by filing second pe!!on under Sec!on 438 CrPC seeking an!cipatory bail.

¶2Since, the first pe!!on was dismissed with liberty to pe!!oner to file fresh disclosing criminal antecedents as such, second pe!!on is maintainable.

¶3Per paragraph 17 of the bail applica!on and the reply dated 29.10.2024, the accused has the following criminal antecedents: Sr. No. FIR No. Year Offenses Police Sta/on

¶1381 2021 406, 420 IPC Fatehpur City, District Saharnpur

¶2382 2021 406, 420, 467, 468, Fatehpur City, District Saharnpur 471 IPC

¶302 2024 406, 420, 467, 468, Fatehpur City, District Saharnpur 471 IPC

¶438 2022 406, 420, 506 IPC Civil Lines, Muzaffarnagar

¶4The facts and allega!ons are being taken from para No. 3 of the reply filed by the State, which reads as follows: order/judgment. 1 "3. That the present case bearing FIR No. 504 dt. 26.10.2023 u/s 406, 420, 506 of IPC was registered on the complaint of Rajesh Kumar Gautam son of Godhraj R/o House No. A/106, Rail Vihar Ambala Can-District Ambala with the following contents that "To, The Superintendent of Police, Ambala, It is submi-ed that I, Rajesh Kumar Gautam, son of Late Godhraj I am a resident of House No. A/106, Bihar, Ambala Can-. I has a government job in Railway Department, I have two daughters and a son (three children). Two years ago, accused Rajesh Kumar son of Mr. Soran Singh, resident of Mohalla Kajimal, Sultanpur Dehat, Chilkana District Saharanpur, who is known to me, came and told that the accused would get a job for my daughter at the post of clerk in the Income Tax Department. That I told to the accused that it is not so easy to get a job. That he kept telling to me con:nuously and a;er a month, the accused took two Lakh rupees from me under the pretext of ge<ng a job for my daughter. A day later, above Rajesh Kumar took me to Lucknow in a guest house. Where he took me and introduced a person namely Rashid S/o Mohd. Na-hu Khan, House No.42 Kailash Kunj Faizabad Road Lucknow where Md. Rashid assured me that they would arrange a job for my daughter as a clerk in the Income Tax Department and he also told to me that apart from this, if any other child is interested in ge<ng a job, then they would get him/her a job too, on which I came under the influence of above two persons, I talked about ge<ng jobs for my daughter Bhavna and my nephew Devendra Singh and the my brother-in-law's son Harsh Gautam, on which above both persons said that they would get jobs for all the three children. For which Rs 30 lakh will have to be paid. That the complainant has Come under the influence of accused persons and that me and my nephew Devendra and my brother-in-law's son namely Harsh, Transferred Rs. 50,000 and Rs. 1,00,000 online to accused Rashid on 5 February 2021. On

12.02.2021, Rs 49 thousands and Rs 49500 were given, a;er that Rs 49500 were given online and Rs 3 lakh fi;y thousand were given by cheque. On 13th February 2021, transferred Rs.48,000/-, on 15th February 2021, Transferred Rs. 4000/- online, On 16th February 2021 Transferred Rs.1000/-. On 17.02.2021, Rs. 1,49,000/- was transferred online and Rs. 1,50,000 was given through cheque. On 22 February 2021, Rs.4,50,000 deposited in account no. "0277102000006460" which belongs to Mohd Rashid and transferred Rs 50,000/- online on order/judgment. 22 February 2021. On 5 March 2021 Transferred Rs 70000/- online. On March 17, 2021 that the complainant paid Rs 2,00,000/- and then again Rs 200000/- paid to the accused Rashid. Rs 150000/-, Deposited in bank account of Rashid. But even a;er paying the above money, I talked to Rashid on phone and he kept me running :ll 6 months at Income Tax Department at Delhi, a;er that both the persons switched off their phones, a;er which we became suspicious and enquired about both of persons, on which we came to know that accused Rashid is in Muzaffar Nagar jail in any case of defrauding Rs. 35 lakh in the name of ge<ng a job from someone else. A;er coming to know about this, we went to Muzaffar Nagar Jail to meet Mohd. Rashid and there we met Md. Rashid. A;er mee:ng Rashid, we demanded back ours Rs 24 lakh, Rashid stated that he has Rs 99 lakh in his account, and he will return the money as soon as he comes out from the jail. I waited for the accused to come out of jail. He came out of jail in the month of January 2023. Then I contacted Md. Rashid over phone and Md. Rashid kept telling me that he will soon return our money around Rs 24 lakh. When I asked Rashid on 24.08.2023 for my money, then Md. Rashid started abusing me on the phone and said that he would not get any of your children employed nor he would return your money. He threatened to me over call that in case you would again call to take your money or make any kind of complaint against me in the police, he would kill the complainant and his family. I have rela:ons with the criminals. Therefore, it is requested that approximately Rs 24 lakh should be returned from the above men:oned persons and strict legal ac:on should be taken against the accused. A photocopy of the le-er given by accused Rashid regarding the job and the details of money transferred online is a-ached."

¶4Counsel for the pe!!oner has argued on the following point: "That the pe::oner has filed a complaint to the D.R.M. Railway Department, Ambala Can-. dated 29.01.2021 against the complainant Rajesh Kumar regarding the chea:ng and misappropria:on of money of Rs. 18,00,000/- with the pe::oner but :ll date no ac:on has been taken on the complaint of pe::oner. The copy of complaint filed by the complainant is a-ached with the pe::on as Annexure P-3." order/judgment. 3

¶5The pe!!oner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent condi!ons and contends that further pre-trial incarcera!on would cause an irreversible injus!ce to the pe!!oner and their family.

¶6The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply.

¶7It would be appropriate to refer to the following por!ons of the reply, which read as follows: "4. That the present complaint was received vide complaint No. 5083-PW dated 04.09.2023 and the same was sent to SHO, PS Parao for inquiry. During inquiry of complaint, the documents a-ached by the complainant with the complaint has been examined and statement of complainant was recorded and since, there was documentary evidence on the file, hence, the inquiry officer prepared his report sugges:ng that the detailed inves:ga:on is required in this case a;er registra:on of case against the accused persons Mohd. Rashid Khan and Rajesh Kumar and the report was sent to the office of Superintendent of Police, Ambala for necessary direc:ons. Therea;er, by the orders of The Superintendent of Police, Ambala, the present case was registered and inves:ga:on of the case has been carried out by local police. The copy of statement submi-ed by complainant with the complaint of Online transfer of amount total Rs. 21,20,000/- is annexed as Annexure R-1.

¶5That during Inves:ga:on of case, on 05.11.2023, the complainant was joined in the Inves:ga:on and the complainant Rajesh Gautam has produced the copies of offer of appointment le-ers in the name of Bhawana Rani Gautam, Davinder Singh and Harsh Gautam which were taken in possession by preparing recovery memo duly a-ested by the witnesses. The copies of offer of appointment le-ers are annexed as Annexure R-2 to Annexure R-4. The IO tried to apprehend the accused persons namely Mohd. Rashid Khan and Rajesh Kumar(accused) and applied for CDR/LOCATION of accused-pe::oner but none of accused could be arrested as they are absconding.

¶6That during inves:ga:on, on 07.03.2024, the inves:ga:ng officer reached in State Bank of India branch, Nickelson Road, Ambala Can-and moved an applica:on for collec:on of account statement of account of complainant bearing number xxxxxxx34582 w.e.f. 05.02.2021 to 18.03.2021 and the same was taken in possession by preparing recovery memo duly a-ested by the witnesses. On 28.03.2024, the inves:ga:ng officer reached at the house of accused-pe::oner but the accused-pe::oner was not found present at his house.

¶7That on 15.04.2024, the inves:ga:ng officer reached in State Bank of India branch, Nickelson Road, Ambala Can-and moved an applica:on for collec:on of account statement of account of rela:ve of complainant bearing number order/judgment. 4 xxxxxx04144 w.e.f. 01.01.2021 to 31.03.2021 and the same was taken in possession by preparing recovery memo duly a-ested by the witnesses.

¶8That therea;er, on the same day, IO reached in IDBI branch, Nickelson Road, Ambala Can-and moved an applica:on for collec:on of account statement of account of accused-pe::oner Md. Rashid bearing number xxxxxxx0006460 w.e.f. 01.01.2021 to 31.03.2021 and the same was taken in possession by preparing recovery memo duly a-ested by the witnesses. The copy of Bank Account statement of bank account bearing number xxxxxxx0006460 of accused-pe::oner is annexed as Annexure R-5.

¶9That on examina:on of account statement of account bearing number xxxxxx00006460 of accused-pe::oner, it has been found that on 14.01.2021 an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-, on 15.01.2021 an amount of Rs. 45,000/-, on

15.01.2021 an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-, on 05.02.2021 an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-, on 12.02.2021 an amount of Rs. 4,98,000/-, on 13.02.2021 an amount of Rs. 48,000/-, on 22.02.2021 an amount of Rs. 4,50,000/-, on

17.03.2021 an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- and on 18.03.2021 an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- has been found transferred in the account of accused-pe::oner Md. Rashid from the account of complainant Rajesh Gautam and his rela:ves, which clearly establish that the accused-pe::oner has received the amount of about Rs. 24,00,000/- from the complainant by alluring him on the pretext of providing jobs in Govt. departments, hence, the accused-pe::oner has cheated the complainant and to elicit the truth in this case, the custodial interroga:on of the accused-pe::oner is very much necessary in this case."

¶8State counsel submits that no such complaint has been received by the Railway Department and its a fake allega!on. State counsel denies such complaint and states that all cover up to get bail and pe!!oner is mis-leading this Court. State counsel further submits that they seek custodial interroga!on of the pe!!oner for elici!ng the truth in this case and to know about how and from where he has got prepared false and forged appointment leAers issued in the name of Bhawana, Davinder and Harsh Gautam and for recovery of cheated amount about Rs. 2,40,000/- from his possession.

¶9Although the complainant is equally to blame for bypassing the normal recruitment process and, through chea!ng and illegal means, wan!ng a job for money; However, it would not give any advantage to a thug who perpetrated and ins!gated such illicit hopes. The sly way the pe!!oner conned the complainant points out the dangerous trend of the revival of thugee by revisi!ng the history. An analysis of the allega!ons and evidence collected does not warrant the grant of bail to the pe!!oner.

¶10There is sufficient prima facie evidence in nature of bank transac!ons and pe!!oner did not offer any explana!on. order/judgment. 5

¶11A perusal of the bail pe!!on and the documents aAached primafacie points towards the pe!!oner's involvement and does not make out a case for an!cipatory bail. The impact of crime would also not jus!fy an!cipatory bail. Any further discussions will likely prejudice the pe!!oner; this court refrains from doing so.

¶12Any observa!on made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

¶13Pe//on dismissed. Interim orders are recalled with immediate effect. All pending applica!ons, if any, are disposed of. In par!ng, concerned officer of the Legal Services Authority is directed to make necessary payment to legal aid counsel in accordance with law without any delay. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

12.12.2024 Jyo!-II Whether reportable: No. order/judgment. 6

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 02.12.2024 Pronounced on: 12.12.2024 Rashid Khan ...Pe!!oner Versus State of Haryana and another …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Ms. Gurpreet Kaur, Advocate for the pe!!oner. (Legal Aid Counsel) Mr. Rajat Gautam, Addl. A.G. Haryana. Mr. V.K. Pujara, Advocate for the complainant. ****