Allowed¶31

Sabbir Khan Alias Sabir v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Jul 2025CRM-M/16337/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail allowed — CRM-M-16337-2025, Sabbir Khan @ Sabir v. State of Haryana, decided 23.07.2025 by Manisha Batra, J., High Court of Punjab & Haryana. FIR No. 270/2023, P.S. Bhondsi, Gurugram; IPC Ss. 147, 149, 323, 364-A, 386, 387, 427, 506 and Arms Act S. 25; alleged extortion calls and abduction/kidnapping-for-ransom of victim Shahid (demand of Rs. 16,00,000/-); investigation complete, trial pending; bail granted on custody period, parity with co-accused Mohd. Ismnail and Salim, and hostile/non-supporting victim and material witnesses; no comment on merits; release on personal/surety bonds before CJM/Duty Magistrate.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail granted; petitioner to be released on furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. ¶31

Sabbir Khan Alias Sabir Vs State of Haryana — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Regular bail granted; petitioner to be released on furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, facing trial in FIR No. 270 dated 03.10.2023 (P.S. Bhondsi, District Gurugram), deserves to be released on regular bail.

¶15

Court's answer

Taking into account the period spent by the petitioner in custody, parity with co-accused Mohd. Ismnail and Salim who were extended bail, and the facts that the victim and two material witnesses did not support the prosecution version and the complainant had been avoiding appearance as a witness before the trial Court, the petition deserved to be allowed, without any comment on the merits.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

The petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Manisha Batra, J.) allowed regular bail to Sabbir Khan @ Sabir, accused in FIR No. 270 dated 03.10.2023, P.S. Bhondsi, District Gurugram, registered under Sections 147, 149, 323, 364-A, 386, 387, 427 and 506 of IPC, 1860 and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959, arising out of allegations of threatening/extortion calls to complainant Isthak Khan and abduction of Shahid with a ransom demand of Rs. 16,00,000/-. Bail was granted on the basis of the period spent in custody, parity with co-accused Mohd. Ismnail and Salim (already extended benefit of bail), the victim and two material witnesses (Khurshid Ahmed @ Kurrai and Sohab Khan) not supporting the prosecution version, and the complainant avoiding appearance as a witness before the trial Court — expressly without any comment on merits. Release ordered on furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned; pending application(s), if any, rendered infructuous; order effective from upload on the Court's official webpage.

¶1

CRM-M-16337-2025

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

240 CRM-M-16337-2025 Date of decision: 23^rd July, 2025

Sabbir Khan @ Sabir

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

¶11

Present: Mr. Arun Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Ms. Himani Arora, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.

¶13

¶14

MANISHA BATRA, J (ORAL):-

¶15

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 270 dated 03.10.2023 registered under Sections 147, 149, 323, 364-A, 386, 387, 427 and 506 of IPC, 1860 and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Bhondsi, District Gurugram. 2. Adumbrated facts as emanating from the record are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of complaint submitted by the complainant Isthak Khan on 03.10.2023 alleging therein that he owned four hydra cranes and three tractors which were plied by him for different companies. On 30.09.2023, he received a Whatsapp call on his mobile phone. The caller while introducing himself as Amit, resident of village Alipur told the complainant to give a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- to him and otherwise threatened to kill him or his family members. The complainant told him that he did not have money to part with. Then the caller threatened

¶16

Parveen Sharma 2025.07.25 11:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CRM-M-16337-2025

¶18

¶19

him by saying that they had killed one Ashok Rathi and the complainant would be finished in same manner. On 01.10.2023, Rashid, a co-villager of complainant had taken his Scorpio car for some work. On 02.10.2023, the complainant received a whatsapp call and the caller while introducing him as Salim Hariyakheda told the complainant that his scorpio car was in their possession and would be given back only after receipt of a sum of Rs. 16,00,000/-. He also told the complainant to meet him near Dhunela underpass. The complainant went there in the afternoon. Sometime, thereafter, some persons came in his car towards him and one of them, snatched a sum of Rs. 8,000/- from his pocket and told him to give more money and otherwise to face consequences and then fled. The complainant made a call on the mobile phone of Sahid who informed him that he had been abducted by the accused Amit, Bobby and Salim on the previous evening and they were raising demand of Rs. 16,00,000/- to release him and had been extending threat to kill him by pointing pistol. The complainant gave information at the police control room about the entire incident. He along with ASI Narender from Police Station Bhondsi had gone to village Hariyakheda, where his car was found lying parked in the house of Ismnail. Shahid who had taken the car from the complainant was made to sit there while the co-accused Rohit Dagar @ Bobby, Amit, Salim, Javed and Jabir @ Sabir i.e. the present petitioner were also present there. On seeing the complainant, they started hurling abuses to him. Some other persons also joined and then all of them extended beatings to him. With the help of police, Shahid was got released from the custody of the petitioner and other persons and the car was also taken into custody. He prayed for taking action

¶20

Parveen Sharma 2025.07.25 11:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

CRM-M-16337-2025

¶22

¶23

against the culprits. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The petitioner was arrested on 13.10.2023. Investigation has since been completed and the petitioner along with co-accused is facing trial for commission of aforementioned offences.

¶24

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He is in custody since 27.05.2024. The victim Shahid and material witnesses Khurshid Ahmed @ Kurrai and Sohab Khan have been examined and neither of them has implicated the petitioner in commission of subject crime. Trial is likely to take time. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. The co-accused Mohd. Ismnail and Salim, whose case is on similar footing have been extended benefit of bail. On parity, he too deserves to be released on bail. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

¶25

Status report has been filed by respondent State. It is submitted by learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations, the petitioner does not deserve to be extended benefit of bail. Therefore, it is urged that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

¶26

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have gone through the record carefully.

¶27

The petitioner along with the co-accused is alleged to have abducted the victim Sahhid and is further alleged to have caused injuries to him. The victim and two material witnesses have not supported the prosecution version. While disposing of the bail petition of the co-accused Mohd. Ismnail and Salim, this Court had observed that the complainant had

¶28

Parveen Sharma 2025.07.25 11:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶29

CRM-M-16337-2025

¶30

¶31

been avoiding his appearance as a witness before the learned trial Court. Keeping in view the period spent by the petitioner in custody, on parity and further in view of the above discussed facts and circumstances of the case but without meaning to make any comment on the merits thereof, I am of the considered opinion that the petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, the same is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned.

¶32