ASHISH AGGARWAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By virtue of the present petition, under Sec. 528 BNSS Petitioner, Ashish Aggarwal, son of Vinod Aggarwal, resident of E1809, Sector-107, Parteek Edifice Noida, Gautam Buddha Nagar, UP, an accused in case bearing FIR No.351 dtd. 7/12/2024 registered against him at Police Station Sadar, District Rohtak, for the commission of offences punishable u/s 103(1), 109(2), 3(5) of BNS and Sec. 25 of Arms Act, 1959 (Ss. 111(2)(a)/317(2)/61 BNS and Sec. 27/29 of Arms Act added later on), has sought a declaration that his arrest and subsequent remand orders dtd. 2/3/2025 passed by the then JMIC, Rohtak (appended along with petition as Annexure P-4), be declared as illegal, alleging them to be in gross violation of his Fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India, as also being against the mandate of following judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court:-

(2.) Petitioner alleges

(3.) On notice, separate detailed replies opposing the main petition and the miscellaneous application have been filed by State of Haryana and complainant-victim, respectively. In the reply filed by the State, apart from reiterating the factual aspects leading to the lodging of the FIR, sequence of events leading to the disclosure of the name of petitioner as being one of the active member/co-conspirators in the entire crime was pointed out. As per the Investigating Agency of the State, petitioner used to handle the amount of financers and used to settle the account with the help of the gangsters by threatening persons and used to extort money, thereafter the money recovered used to be sent through Hawala to gangsters residing abroad. It is further their stand that deceased Manjit, a financer, was demanding his money back from petitioner, who was in constant touch with well known gangsters namely Himanshu @ Bhau (settled abroad) and Neeraj Faridpuriya, to commit murder of Manjit. Incriminating material collected during the course of investigation establishing involvement of the petitioner has also been referred to in the report.