MUBARIK AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners, Mubarik and three others have brought the above mentioned two petitions for regular bail. Though, the petitioners are the same in both the cases and the case pleaded against them is also the same, yet in Criminal Misc. No. M-2281 of 2012, bail is sought in a case registered by way of FIR No. 467 dated 4.12.2011 at Police Station Punhana, District Mewat for an offence punishable under sections 365, 344, 147 read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code and in Criminal Misc. No.M- 2778 of 2012 bail is sought in a complaint case titled Abdul Rahim v. Isa and others, pending in the court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur Jhirka, District Mewat for an offence punishable under sections 364-A and 506 IPC.

(2.) Briefly stating, the case of the complainant, Abdul Rahim is that his son Sahun was married with Shakila in the year 2002. Out of the wedlock, a son, named, Parvej was born. On 6.8.2011, at about 1.30 PM, Sahun had gone to the market at Punhana with his brother-in-law, Ramjan. When they were passing in front of the shop of Islam in the Punhana town, Isa, Mubarik, maternal uncles of Shakila along with Daud, Kasam, Shakeel, Rahil and others forcibly took Sahun in a Bolero vehicle and kidnapped him. When Ramjan and the neighbouring shopkeepers tried to rescue Sahun, the said persons scared them by showing them weapons and extending threats that they would kill them. In addition to the aforesaid, it is the allegation of Abdul Rahim in the complaint titled Abdul Rahim Vs. Isa and others that in the evening of 6.,8.2011, he lodged a report with the police. According to him, while he was sitting in the police station itself, a call was received on his mobile phone from mobile number of Daud and Daud demanded a sum of Rs. 2.00 lacs to get his son released. According to him, he had admitted that they had kidnapped his son. Alleging inaction on the part of the police, Abdul Rahim had filed the aforesaid criminal complaint.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Sahun had been loving his wife and his son. He has further submitted that Sahun knew his father to be a greedy person, who wanted to remarry him and in order to avoid this situation, he himself went to Shakila, who was living at her parental home and stayed with her for about four months. He has submitted that after lodging of the FIR, the police investigated the case and before the police, a number of members of the Gram Panchayats of village Neemla, Aulanda, Khoira, Manchi, Jajamka, Basoli had made the facts clear by way of Annexure P3. He has further submitted that the complainant Abdul Rahim had been a greedy person and he had been harassing Shakila in connection with demand of dowry and forced by the behaviour of Abdul Rahim and his family members towards Shakila, FIR (Annexure P2) was lodged for an offence punishable under sections 498-A and 406 IPC at Police Station Kama, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan. He has further submitted that during the course of investigation of the present case, even Sahun appeared before the police and he had clearly stated that he had come to Shakila of his free will and that he loved his wife Shakila and son Parvej and would like to stay with them and that he would like to go to his village only with them and would not do so till his parents did not accept his wife and son. He has then referred me to the affidavit (Annexure P5) of Sahun wherein he has stated these facts. He has further submitted that in these circumstances, allegations of demand of Rs. 2.00 lacs by Daud, the father-in-law of Sahun for his release, cannot be believed. He has further submitted that the petitioners before this court are maternal uncles and cousin brothers of Shakila. According to him, the petitioners are now in custody for more than three months and they are entitled to be released on bail during trial.