Iqbal Mohammad Vs State of Hp

For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Senior Advocate with M/s Anubhav Chopra and Swati Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondent: Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

¶11

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

¶12

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No.118/ of 2025, dated 06.05.2025, registered at Police Station, Baddi, District Solan, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 351(2), 308(2), 308(4), 61(1) and 111 read with Section 3 (5) of Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita,2023 (BNS).

¶13

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes

¶14

( 2025:HHC:31091 )

¶15

2

¶16

It has been asserted that, as per the FIR, the accused stopped a scrap-carrying tractor, which was going from D.M. Pharma, Bhud, to Mandhawala. The informant, Makhan Singh, paid the ransom at gunpoint. The police arrested the petitioner on 23.05.2025. The petitioner was falsely implicated based on a concocted story and distorted facts. The investigation is complete, and no recovery is to be made from the petitioner. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., and there is no possibility of his fleeing from justice. He would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Eleven FIRs have been registered against the petitioner. Hence, the present petition.

¶17

The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant Makhan Singh made a statement to the police that he and his friend Gurbaksh Singh were dealing in scrap, which was coming out of the factories located at Baddi. Scrap was being transported from D.M. Pharma to Madhawala in a tractor on 06.05.2025. The tractor was stopped by some persons at Malpur. One person was identified as Parminder Singh alias Pindri. Iqbal (the present petitioner) and Takwinder Singh alias Tinku had taken a ransom of ₹50,000/- on an earlier occasion. The police registered the FIR and conducted the

¶18

( 2025:HHC:31091 )

¶19

3

¶20

investigation. The call details report and CCTV footage were checked. It was found that Iqbal Mohammad and Takwinder Singh alias Tinku were in touch with Parminder Singh alias Pindri on the date of the incident. They had escorted Parminder Singh alias Pindri and his friend from Punjab. The police checked the record of Parminder Singh alias Pindri, and he was found to be involved in the commission of twenty-six offences. The petitioner and Parminder Singh alias Pindri demanded money from the people at gunpoint. The police arrested the petitioner and recovered vehicles bearing registration No. HP12AA-0909 and HP12Q-0909. Parminder Singh alias Pindri is yet to be arrested, and police are searching for him. The vehicle bearing registration No. HP12AA-0909, which was used to stop the tractor, was going towards Sandholi from Bhud Barrier at 14:09 as per the CCTV footage. The scrap carrying tractor was found going towards the Bhud Barrier at 14:12, and the vehicle bearing registration No. HP12AA-0909 was seen at 14:26 going towards Bhud Barrier. Another CCTV footage showed the car following the tractor for two minutes. The petitioner’s location was found near the place of the incident, as per the call details records. The petitioner is a member of an organised crime syndicate. Multiple FIRs were registered

¶21

( 2025:HHC:31091 )

¶22

4

¶23

against him. The petitioner would intimidate the witnesses in case of his release on bail. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

¶24

I have heard Mr. Ajay Kochhar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by M/s Anubhav Chopra and Ms. Swati Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State.

¶25

Mr. Ajay Kochhar, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and that he was falsely implicated. Initially, the F.I.R. did not mention the petitioner’s name. His name was added during the investigation. The police found after the investigation that the petitioner, Pindri and other co-accused had demanded ransom on 16.04.2025. However, no complaint was made by the informant regarding the demand for ransom from him on an earlier occasion, which shows that the police concocted this version to falsely implicate the petitioner. The offence punishable under Section 111 of BNS is not attracted. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. He relied upon the judgment of

¶26

( 2025:HHC:31091 )

¶27

5

¶28

Aman Shobta versus State of H.P., 2025: HHC:17524 in support of his submission.

¶29

Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner is involved in the commission of a heinous offence. He is a member of an organised crime syndicate and had demanded money from the people at gunpoint. He is likely to influence the witnesses in case of his release on bail. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

¶30

I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

¶31

The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajwar v. Waseem (2024) 10 SCC 768: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 974, wherein it was observed at page

¶32

783: -

¶33

“Relevant parameters for granting bail

¶34

While considering as to whether bail ought to be granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must consider relevant factors like the nature of the accusations made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of tampering of the

¶35

( 2025:HHC:31091 )

¶36

6

¶37

witnesses and repeating the offence, if the accused are released on bail, the likelihood of the accused being unavailable in the event bail is granted, the possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the courts of justice and the overall desirability of releasing the accused on bail. [Refer: Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. [Chaman Lal v. State of U.P ., ( 2004) 7 SCC 525: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1974]; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977]; Masroor v. State of U.P. [Masroor v. State of U.P., (2009) 14 SCC 286 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1368]; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee [Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765]; Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527]; Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi)[Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 12 SCC 129 : (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 425]; Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar [Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 558] . ]

¶38

The Hon’ble Supreme Court cautioned the Courts

¶39

against the superficial examination of the bail consideration in Shabeen Ahmad v. State of U.P., (2025) 4 SCC 172: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 479, and it was observed at page 177:

¶40

“18. A superficial application of bail parameters not only undermines the gravity of the offence itself but also risks weakening public faith in the judiciary's resolve to combat the menace of dowry deaths. It is this very perception of justice, both within and outside the courtroom, that courts must safeguard, lest we risk normalising a crime that continues to claim numerous innocent lives.”

¶41

The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶42

( 2025:HHC:31091 )

¶43

7

¶44

A perusal of the status report shows that the vehicle bearing registration No. HP12AA-0909 was following the scrap-carrying tractor. The driver of tractor Mahfujur Rehman specifically stated in his statement recorded under Section 180 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) that a vehicle bearing registration No. HP12AA-0909 was parked near the liquor vend, Malpur. One person signalled him to stop the tractor. Four people went towards the container depot in the vehicle. Therefore, the presence of the vehicle on the spot is duly established by his statement, and the CCTV footage corroborates the prosecution’s version that the vehicle bearing registration No. HP12AA-0909 was used for the commission of crime. The petitioner had produced this vehicle, which shows his prima facie involvement in the commission of crime.

¶45

The police collected the petitioner’s call details, which showed the petitioner’s location at the place of the incident. The call details record, CCTV footage and statement of the driver show a prima facie involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the crime.

¶46

The police recorded the statement of Sajjan Kumar under Section 180 of BNSS in which he stated that he had

¶47

( 2025:HHC:31091 )

¶48

8

¶49

handed over ₹50,000/- to Gurbaksh, who delivered them to Pindri on 16.04.2025. He has named Iqbal (petitioner), Tinku Saini and another person to be present on the spot.

¶50

Similarly, Ajay Saini stated that Pindri had demanded ₹50,000/- from Gurbaksh Singh by showing him a revolver. Gurbaksh Singh called Sajjan Singh and asked him to bring ₹50,000/-. Gurbaksh paid ₹50,000/- to Pindri. Tinku and Iqbal had accompanied Pindri at the time of the incident.

¶51

It was submitted that this version is not believable because no complaint was made by the victim to the police on 16.04.2025 or thereafter. The victim also had not mentioned this fact in the FIR lodged by him. This submission will not help the petitioner, at this stage, because the Court has to see a prima facie case while deciding the bail petition. The Court has to take the material collected by the prosecution as correct unless there is something inherently improbable in it. In the present case, there is no inherent improbability and the statements of Ajay Saini and Sajjan Kumar cannot be doubted. These statements prima facie show that the petitioner, Pindri and the co-accused were involved in demanding a ransom on

16.04.2025.

( 2025:HHC:31091 )

9

It is undisputed that eleven F.I.Rs have been registered against the petitioner. Section 111 of BNS requires that a person should indulge in a specified activity either singly or jointly as a member of an organised crime syndicate in respect of which more than one charge-sheet has been filed before a Court within the preceding period of ten years, and the Court has taken cognisance of the same. The status report does not show that the charge-sheet has been filed in the F.I.R. mentioned in it, or that the Court has taken cognisance of any of the offence. Therefore, prima facie, the provisions of Section 111 of BNS are not attracted to the present case.

¶56

The allegations in the status report show that the petitioner, along with other persons, had demanded money by showing the pistol and in this manner, they put Gurbaksh in fear of instant death and the ingredients of Section 308(5) of BNS are prima facie satisfied.

¶57

The status report also shows that the petitioner was also involved in the commission of a similar offence. The petition also mentioned that eleven F.I.Rs were registered against the petitioner. It shows that the petitioner has criminal antecedents, and the apprehension expressed by the

¶58

( 2025:HHC:31091 )

¶59

10

¶60

prosecution that the petitioner is likely to commit a similar offence in case of his release on bail is justified. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pinki v. State of U.P., (2025) 7 SCC 314: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 781 that liberty of a person has to be balanced with peace and harmony in society. Liberty cannot be elevated to such a high pedestal as would bring in anarchy or disorder in society. It was observed at page 384 :

¶61

“65. We are absolutely conscious that the liberty of a person should not be lightly dealt with, for the deprivation of the liberty of a person has an immense impact on the mind of a person. Incarceration creates a concavity in the personality of an individual. Sometimes it causes a sense of vacuum. Needless to emphasise, the sacrosanctity of liberty is paramount in a civilised society. However, in a democratic body polity which is wedded to the rule of law, an individual is expected to grow within the social restrictions sanctioned by law. The individual liberty is restricted by larger social interests, and its deprivation must have due sanction of law. In an orderly society, an individual is expected to live with dignity, having respect for the law and also giving due respect to others' rights. It is a well-accepted principle that the concept of liberty is not in the realm of absolutism but is a restricted one. The cry of the collective for justice, its desire for peace and harmony and its necessity for security cannot be allowed to be trivialised. The life of an individual living in a society governed by the rule of law has to be regulated, and such regulations, which are the source of law, subserve the social balance and function as a significant instrument for the protection of human rights and the security of the collective. This is because, fundamentally, laws are made for their obedience so that every member of the society

¶62

( 2025:HHC:31091 )

¶63

11

¶64

lives peacefully in a society to achieve his individual as well as social interests. That is why Edmond Burke, while discussing about liberty, opined, “it is regulated freedom”.

¶65

It is also to be kept in mind that individual liberty cannot be accentuated to such an extent or elevated to such a high pedestal which would bring in anarchy or disorder in society. The prospect of greater justice requires that law and order prevail in a civilised milieu. True it is, there can be no arithmetical formula for fixing the parameters in precise exactitude, but the adjudication should express not only application of mind but also exercise of jurisdiction on accepted and established norms. Law and order in a society protect the established precepts and see to it that contagious crimes do not become epidemic. In an organised society, the concept of liberty basically requires citizens to be responsible and not to disturb the tranquillity and safety which every well-meaning person desires. Not for nothing, J. Oerter stated: “Personal liberty is the right to act without interference within the limits of the law.”

¶66

Thus analysed, it is clear that though liberty is a greatly cherished value in the life of an individual, it is a controlled and restricted one, and no element in the society can act in a manner by consequence of which the life or liberty of others is jeopardised, for the rational collective does not countenance an anti-social or anticollective act. (See: Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh [Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446: (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 1172] .)

¶67