Pradeep Kumar vs State Of H.P

Anoop Chitkara, J

For blackmailing, extorting money from males by getting them allured through co-accused in a honey trap, the petitioner has come up before this

Court under Section 439 CrPC, seeking bail on the grounds that the entire case is a concoction coupled with the fact that he is already in prison for

sufficient time in proportion to the offences involved.

Earlier, the petitioner had filed a petition under Section 439 CrPC before the concerned Sessions Court. However, vide order dated 24.12.2020,

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, HP, dismissed the petition.

Para 8 of the bail petition and status report mention the following criminal history:

a) FIR 298/2020, dated 21.11.2020, under Section 342, 323, 364-A, 388, 504, 506, 120-B, IPCPolice Station Bhuntar, District Kullu, H.P.

Briefly, the allegations against the petitioner, which led to registration of an FIR, mentioned above, are that on 2nd December, 2020, the complainant

informed the Police Station, Sadar, Kullu about the kidnapping and extortion of money. He stated that two months ago, Krishna Pujari A-1, became his

Facebook friend. He did not know her prior to this. In October, 2020, she sent a message on Facebook and started chatting with him. After 10-12

days, she won over him and conveyed that they can be good friends. In November, 2020 he received a phone call from Mobile No.78767-48330,

informing him that she is his Facebook friend Krishna. She said that she would also make one of her friends as his Facebook friend and further that

they can also meet alone day or night. In the first week of November, 2020, they kept on texting on Facebook. On 17th November, 2020, Krishna

Pujari, A-1, again made a phone call asking him to meet her near Shani Mandir at Bhuntar at 7.00 p.m. She also told him to bring one bottle of liquor

and two bottles of beer. After that, the complainant purchased the aforesaid bottles of liquor and beer and reached at Bhuntar Chowk near Shani

Mandir, in his Car. At that time, one Omni Van No. HP34C-9244, came and stopped near him. Two women came out and sat in his car. One woman

introduced her as Krishna (A-1) and another Sarna (A-4). Both of them asked him to go to their home and they would stay there for the night. But

because of busy schedule, he did not accompany them. They took away the liquor and beer and told that they would talk on phone. On 17th

November, 2020, the complainant again received a phone call from Mobile No.90151-00075 from a woman, who told her name as Sarna A-4. She told

the complainant that she is going to her home at Rahla and asked him to drop her at Rahla, where she would be all alone. On 18th November, 2020,

during the day time, Sarna again called him and told that she is at Bajoura and asked him to drop her at home. The complainant alleged that since he

was free as such he took the vehicle and reached Bajoura and noticed Sarna standing on the side of the road. He made her board his vehicle. On the

way Sarna told him to buy a bottle of beer and said that they would drink it together. After that the complainant purchased a bottle of the beer and

asked her about the location of the home. However, she said that they will take beer in the Forest. At a place near Kannoj, she asked him to stop the

vehicle. At that place, one Scorpio, number applied for was parked and five people were present in the said vehicle. Later on their names were known

as Krishna Pujari (A-1), Surender Singh (A-2, Ajay Kumar (A-9), Ashu Kumar (A-3), and Mohit Kumar (A-5) and they started beating him. He

inquired that why are they beating him, then they said that where was he taking his sister and they will not leave him alive. They forcibly made him to

sit in the vehicle and told him that they would register a rape case against him and if he wants to save himself, he would have to pay a sum of rupees

ten lacs. On this, he told them that neither he had forcibly brought Sarna nor he did any wrong act with her then why were they beating him. On this

Sarna said that he cannot save himself and at that time Krishna was also standing along with Sarna. Krishna told him to pay money, otherwise, they

would not leave him alive. After that they took him to Dohranallah and again gave him beatings. Subsequently, they confined him in a room in the

house of Sarna. Somebody has also driven his vehicle from the original spot. He got afraid and thought of paying money to save his life. He started

negotiating with them for a sum of rupees one or two lacs and told them to make him speak to his friend Chetan Guleria. After that Krishna gave him

mobile phone and said that if he does not transfer the money then they would kill him. Complainant spoke with Chetan and asked him to bring rupees

1-2 lacs to Dohranallah and told him that he will tell the reasons later. After two hours, Chetan, Mohinder and Govind, who are the friends of the

complainant, brought money and reached at Dohranallah. Surinder brought them further. At that place Sarna, Krishna, Surender husband of Sarna

Tara Chand (A-7) were standing and inquired from them that how much money they were paying. On which those people told about one lac rupees

and showed their inability to pay ten lacs rupees. Chetan handed over rupees one lac twenty three thousand to them. Krishna and Sarna told the

complainant that henceforth he would have to work for them. On this, the complainant inquired from them that what kind of work he has to do. Then

Mohar Singh (A-8), Pradeep Kumar (A-6) and Surender (A-2) told him that he would have to trap the people and he would get a commission of 10%.

On this, to save his life, he agreed to work as their pimp. They deleted the data from his phone and let him go. All these allegations led to the

registration of the aforesaid FIR.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that there is delay in FIR and it is a counter effect of the previous FIR.

On the contrary, Learned Additional Advocate General contends that the accused is a proven habitual offender, and given his past conduct; he is

likely to repeat the offence. He further insists that if this Court is inclined to grant bail, then such a bond must be subject to very stringent conditions.

The legislature enacted extremely stringent penal Laws to protect children and women. The deterrence was to send a message to perverts to mend

their ways. However, accused persons have taken advantage of such stringent laws and trapped the complainant in honeytrap. This act would erode

the credibility of even the genuine victims of sexual assault. As such the accused are not entitled to bail.

With the aforesaid observations, the petition is dismissed. The petitioner shall be at liberty to file fresh petition before this court after filing of Police

report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

The petition is dismissed.