NUSRAT HUSSAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who claims himself to bean Ex-Memberof Parliament, is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections342/386/377 of the Indian Penal Code. He is seeking anticipatory bail.

(2.) The investigation is still going on. The learned Counsel for the State hastaken me through the statement of the complainant and so also to the statements ofsome of the witnesses who have been examined under Section 161 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure. I need not go deep into what they have said. The complainantsays that he is the owner-landlord of property No. 90 situate at Poorvi Marg, VasantVihar, New Delhi and that since he was keen to dispose of the same, the accuscd/petitioner took advantage of the same, entered into some agreement of sale, tooksubstantial part of the advance money himself and grabbed it. He alleges that hewas kept in confinement with men keeping surveillance over him and wasthreatened, beaten and compelled to sign on certain documents including certaincheques and that on three occasions his person was subjected to sodomy also bynone other but the petitioner himself. The Investigating Officer has also recordedthe statements of Aas Mohd., A.Ghosh and Gurcharan Singh under Section 161 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure. Aas Mohd. claims to have been employed as adomestic help by the present petitioner whereas A.Ghosh and Gurcharan Singh areallegedly living in the neighbourhood of the petitioner. They do lend support to thecase of the prosecution to the extent that the complainant was kept under surveillance. As per Aas Mohd. not only he but three more persons were directed to keepa watch on the complainant and that the petitioner used to subject the complainantto physical violence. The State during investigation has also recorded the statementof one S.K.Sharma who is the Manager of the Central Bank of India, Gole MarketBranch which goes to show that at least three cheques of Rs.1 lakh each, which wereissued by the complainant, were deposited in the account of the petitioner or hiswife. Besides that the complainant has alleged that out of the money receivced bythe petitioner from the agreements of sale the petitioner has purchased a car, oiltankers, two coolers, two TV sets, one fridge, one camera, one VCR and someornaments for his wife.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since Section 437(1) ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure imposes no limit bn Section 438 and since thepetitioner happens to be a respectable person and as there is no apprehension of hisrunning away from the law or not participating in investigation, therefore, heshould be given the benefit of anticipatory bail. He has further submitted that nocase for extortion is made out and that in any case Section 386 of the Indian penalCode is not attracted. With regard to offence under Section 377 of the Indian PenalCode he submits that there is no material to even prima facie involve the petitioner.As regards Section 342 though it is claimed that though the allegations are false,in any case, the offence is bailable. The learned Counsel for the petitioner hasfurther submitted that the petitioner had been participating in the investigation.However, as per the learned Counsel for the State, the petitioner has all along beenextremely unhelpful.