Manoj @ Mauja Vs State of Haryana

FIR No.	Dated	Police Station	Sections
573	29.11.2025	Sirsa City, District Sirsa	111(3), 115, 127(2), 140(3), 308(2) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNS”) (61 of BNS added later on)

¶15

The facts and allegations are being taken from the reply/status

¶16

MANJU 2026.07.15 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh

¶17

CRM-M No.10004 of 2026

¶18

-2-

¶19

report filed by the State, which reads as follows:-

¶20

“2. That brief facts of the case are that case FIR No.573 dated 29.11.2025, under sections 111(3)/115/127(2)/140(3)/351(2)/308(2) BNS (sections 61(2) BNS was added during the investigation), Police Station City Sirsa, District Sirsa/Annexure P-1 was registered on the complaint of complainant Jaswant Singh son of Hardutt Singh, resident of Chilkani Dhabh, Ellenabad, against (1) Suresh son of Ganga Ram, (2) Dalbir Singh son of Surjeet Singh, (3) Shiv Kumar son of Balwant Singh, (4) Raj Kumar son of Sharwan Singh, (5) Rajesh Kumar son of Kuldeep, (6) petitioner/accused Manoj Kumar son of Raghuveer, (7) Suman daughter of Sultan Singh and (8) Pooja wife of Vikash, by name. English translation of extract of FIR is as under:

¶21

Stated that I am a resident of the abovesaid address. I am 7^th pass. About a week ago, on my phone make Vivo 1916 in which phone No.94161-16911 is working, on which a friend request with the name "Khushi Khushi" came on my Gmail ID "[email protected]" which is linked to Facebook ID "jaswantsinghdehru". I accepted it. Then two days later I got a waving hand emoji on messenger. Then I wrote Hello. After that the person on the other side said who is he? I asked who are you. The answer was got, I am Khushi. I wrote that I am Jaswant Singh, then we kept talking. The next day I received a direct call on my phone No.94161-16911 from phone No.97288-25926 on which a girl spoke who first said "Ram-Ram" and then said that I am Khushi. We both talked for about 2 minutes. The entire conversation is recorded in my phone. Khushi called me today and said that you should come to my house in Fatehabad, we will meet and talk there. I and my friend namely Subhash Chander son of Bhagi Ram, resident of Chilkani Dhabh, left for Fatehabad at around 10:00 AM in car No. HR-44-P-1980, make Toyota HYRYDER. Subhash Chander was driving the car. We met three girls near Fatehabad

¶22

MANJU 2026.07.15 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh

¶23

CRM-M No.10004 of 2026

¶24

-3-

¶25

Papiha Park. One girl told her name as Khushi and I did not ask the names of the other two. Three of them got into our car, and Khushi said, Let's go to my aunt's house in Bhirdana, and we'll talk there. Then, the five of us went to Dhani of Sultan Beniwal's in village Bhirdana. We found an old woman there. My friend Subhash Chander, Khushi and her two friends sat down in a room. Subhash Chander left the room to urinate. Someone locked the gate from outside. Two boys came from outside and started beating me. Then two more boys came and gave beatings to me. Then they told me, you're doing wrong to our wife. Either settle the matter, we'll hand you over to the police or pay Rs.20 lakh. I said, take me to the police and if I'm wrong, I'll be punished. We said, "I don't have Rs.20 lakh. Finally, we settled for 3 lakh rupees. They took both of our phones. Subhash Chander arranged the money using his Phone. He called his uncle's son namely Ajay on speaker phone. Subhash said, bring Rs.1,50,000/-. Ajay replied, I have Rs.90,000/- and I'll bring it. One of the boys namely Deepak, told him to bring the money to Sawera Hotel, near the bus stand in Sirsa. They held us hostage for about five hours. Subhash Chander called Ajay to Sirsa with the money. They kept us talking to Ajay through Subhash Chander's phone. We were taken from Dhani to our car, where two boys, Suresh and Dalbir, sat with us. Behind us, a white Scorpio and another car, an S-Cross, drove off. Two boys were in the S-Cross and two boys and two girls alongwith a girl, were in the Scorpio. One of the girl had gone somewhere from the Dhani. I couldn't see the vehicle number. These people brought us to Sirsa to demand more money. Subhash Chander had his relative Vinod Kumar transfer Rs.50,000/- to his phone through Google Pay and Subhash Chander also transferred Rs.50,000/- to mobile No.97297-55977 of Sunil Kumar. I said, come to Gol Diggi, my money is coming too. We all went to Gol Diggi. From there, we went to the grain market to get money from a trader so we could give it to them and get rid of

¶26

MANJU 2026.07.15 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh

¶27

CRM-M No.10004 of 2026

¶28

-4-

¶29

them. We couldn't reach a deal there. I spoke to my uncle namely Bhim Sen and told him, uncle, I need Rs.1,50,000/-. If you don't give it, these people will kill me. My uncle called the police, who arrived shortly after, they apprehended them, alongwith the vehicles, near Jagdev Singh Chowk, Sirsa, and rescued us. A girl named Khushi called me to Fatehabad and held me hostage for about 8-10 hours, threatening to kill me and Implicate me in a false case and beat me up. They extorted Rs.1,50,000/- from Subhash Chander of which Rs.90,000/- was in cash and Rs.50,000/- through Google Pay and forced me to pay Rs.1,50,000/-. The aforementioned persons kidnapped me and brought me to Sirsa as a hostage. A demand for Rs.20 lakh was made from me and after much pressure, I was persuaded to pay Rs.1,50,000/- to save my life. Khushi, her two friends, an old woman in their village, who said they had been insulted and six boys, of whom I know the names of Dalbir and Suresh, but I don't know the names of the others, are an organized gang that extorts money from people by threatening and blackmailing them in the name of a girl. Legal action should be taken against them. I can identify the girl and an old woman who are not present at the spot if they come forward. Legal action should be taken against all the above said persons". Sd/-Jaswant Singh .”

¶30

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. There is delay of 24 hours in lodging of the FIR which has not been satisfactorily explained. The petitioner never came into contact with the complainant. There is no material on record to suggest that he ever tried to extract any money from the complainant or his friend. No money whatsoever has been transferred in his acount or handed over to him. Infact, the other co-accused by

¶31

MANJU 2026.07.15 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh

¶32

CRM-M No.10004 of 2026

¶33

-5-

¶34

hatching conspiracy against the complainant and his friend and by establishing a honey trapping syndicate had got the complainant falsely implicated. There is no call detail record or any bank transaction to connect him with the commission of subject offences. He is only a taxi driver who was hired by the co-accused. On account of his mere presence with the co-accused, he cannot be presumed to have committed any offence. He is in custody since 29.11.2025. Investigation stands concluded. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in further ustody. He has a permanent abode. There are no chances of his absconding or intimidating the witnesses. He is ready to abide by the terms and conditions to be imposed upon him. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.

¶35

Per contra, learned State counsel while relying upon the status report, has vehemently argued that the allegations against the petitioner are quite serious in nature as by hatching a conspiracy with the coaccused, he had abducted the complainant Jaswant Singh and his friend Subhash Chander for ransom and to extract money from them by way of honey trapping. They were kept confied for about five hours and an amount of Rs.20 lakhs was demanded from the victim. They also extracted an amount of Rs.1.5 lakhs from Subhash Chander. The case is at its nascent stage. The material witnesses are yet to be examined. There are chances of petitioner’s threatening or intimidating them. It is, thus,

¶36

MANJU 2026.07.15 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh

¶37

CRM-M No.10004 of 2026

¶38

-6-

¶39

stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

¶40

This Court has considered the rival submissions.

¶41

The petitioner is alleged to have been a part of conspiracy hatched with the co-accused on the basis of which the victim Jaswant Singh was allured by a female who was a member of their group by way of honey trapping, on whose asking the complainant along with his friend Subhash Chander had reached at the address given by her and was kept hostage in order to extort ransom money but was rescued by the police. The petitioner was driving one of the cars apprehended by the police party. The allegations make out a prima facie case for commission of subject offences against him. The allegations levelled against him are quite serious in nature. It is well settled proposition of law that grant of bail is a discretionary relief to be granted or denied based on specific facts and circumstances of each case and there cannot be any exhaustive parameter set out for considering the application for grant of bail. The factors such as nature of accusations, severity of punishment if the accusations entail, conviction and nature of evidence in support of the accusations are to be seen. That apart reasonable apprehension of tampering with evidence or threatening the material witnesses is also to be weighed. Frivolity of prosecution should also be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that has to be considered in the matter of grant of bail. However, keeping in view the foregoing legal principles

¶42

MANJU 2026.07.15 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh

¶43

CRM-M No.10004 of 2026

¶44

-7-

¶45

and the circumstances as discussed above, this Court finds no compelling ground to allow the petition at this stage. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

¶46

It is, however, clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

¶47

(MANISHA BATRA) 15.07.2026 JUDGE manju Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

¶48

MANJU 2026.07.15 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh

Manoj @ Mauja v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj @ Mauja v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parkash Kumar Biswal Vs M/S Videocon Industries Limited and Ors.

Rajiv Kumar Sood Vs State of Punjab

Budh Ram Vs State of Punjab

Rajender Singh @ Rahul Vs State of Haryana

Rajesh Vs State of Haryana

Rakesh Kumar Alias Rajesh Kumar and Others Vs Lakhbir Singh and Others