SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Tayyub vs State Of Haryana on 23 February, 2018

Criminal Misc. No. M- 50001 of 2017 (OM) 1

213 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

Criminal Misc. No. M- 50001 of 2017 (OM)
Date of decision : February 23, 2018

Tayyub …..Petitioner

Versus
State of Haryana ….Respondent

Criminal Misc. No. M- 42336 of 2017 (OM)

Parvej …..Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ….Respondent

Criminal Misc. No. M- 47665 of 2017 (OM)

Arshad …..Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ….Respondent

Criminal Misc. No. M- 40436 of 2017 (OM)

Aamin …..Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ….Respondent

CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL

Present: Mr. Munfaid Khan, Advocate
for the petitioners.

Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Saleem Ahmed, Advocate
for the complainant.
***

LISA GILL, J.

This order shall dispose of CRM-M- 50001, 42336, 47665 and

40436 of 2017.

1 of 4
05-03-2018 01:33:06 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M- 50001 of 2017 (OM) 2

Petitioners in all the above said petitions seek the concession of

anticipatory bail in FIR No. 266 dated 06.07.2017 under Sections 306, 34

IPC registered at Police Station Tauru, District Nuh.

It is submitted that all the petitioners have been falsely

implicated in this case registered at the instance of the complainant – Jakir.

As per the allegations in the complaint, the complainant’s sister Mamuna

had two sons and a daughter – Najma. It is alleged that petitioner – Tayyub

Hussain kidnapped the complainant’s niece about two years ago. She was

recovered from Alwar, Rajasthan. Thereafter, petitioner – Tayyub Hussain

pressurised the complainant’s sister to hand over her daughter to him and on

her refusal threatened her with dire consequences. FIR No. 35/2017 was

falsely registered against the complainant’s nephew and others. Another

FIR under Section 376 IPC, it is stated, was also registered against another

nephew of the complainant. False applications were given by the petitioner

– Tayyub. Due to this reason, the complainant sister used to remain very

upset. The complainant’s sister alongwith her children came to the

complainant’s house on 30.06.2017. On 03.07.2017, petitioner – Tayyub

Hussain alongwith his brother-in-law Arshad (petitioner in CRM-M-47665-

2017) arrived at the complainant’s house and threatened his sister Mamuna,

asking her to hand over her daughter. Thereafter, on 04.07.2017, when his

sister (deceased) and her son Azad were present in Court of Sub Divisional

Magistrate, Nuh, they were threatened by the petitioner – Tayyub Hussain,

Aamin and Arshad. It is averred that due to the threats meted out by all the

accused persons, the complainant’s sister committed suicide after imbibing

some poisonous substance. FIR No. 266 dated 06.07.2017 was, thus,

registered on the said allegations.

2 of 4
05-03-2018 01:33:11 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M- 50001 of 2017 (OM) 3

Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that all the

petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. In fact, marriage was

solemnised by the petitioner – Tayyub Hussain with the daughter of the

deceased on 15.01.2015. Nikah namma as well as voter list is available with

the petitioner to reflect the same. Wife of the petitioner – Tayyub Hussain

was not being allowed to join his company and under pressure FIR No. 71

dated 11.07.2017 under Sections 376 and 306 IPC was got registered at the

instance of Najma (purported to be his wife). It is contended that the said

FIR was investigated and it was found that the allegations therein were

incorrect and cancellation report has been recommended. Arshad (petitioner

in CRM-M-47665-2017) has been involved as he is the brother-in-law

(brother of the first wife of Tayyub). Parvej (petitioner in CRM-M-42336-

2017) is the son of Tayyub. Aamin (petitioner in CRM-M-40436-2017) has

been falsely implicated in this matter because his daughter had registered

FIR under Sections 376D, 342 IPC against Aslam son of the deceased

Mamuna and others.

It is further submitted that co-accused Waseem son of the

petitioner – Tayyub had approached this Court seeking bail pending trial but

the same was dismissed on 29.08.2017. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide

order dated 06.12.2017 in SLP (Crl.) No. 7210/2017 (Annexure P-1 with

CRM-M-50001-2017 has, however, afforded the concession of anticipatory

bail to the said accused Waseem. It is further submitted that it is debatable

that any offence punishable under Sections 306, 34 IPC is made out against

the petitioners. It is, thus, prayed that these petitions be allowed.

Learned counsel for the complainant as well as the State has

opposed these petitions while submitting that specific allegations have been

3 of 4
05-03-2018 01:33:11 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M- 50001 of 2017 (OM) 4

levelled against the present petitioners. It is submitted that FIR registered at

the instance of the daughter of Aamin has infact been cancelled and FIR No.

37 has not yet been cancelled. However, it is undeniable that the Hon’ble

Supreme Court vide order dated 06.12.2017 has afforded the concession of

anticipatory to the co-accused Waseem.

There are no allegations on behalf of the State that the

petitioners are likely to abscond or that they are likely to dissuade the

witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances noted above but

without expressing any opinion on the merits of case, it is considered just

and expedient to allow these petitions. In the event of their arrest,

petitioners – Tayyub, Parvej, Arshad and Aamin shall be released on bail to

the satisfaction of Investigating Officer/Arresting officer. They shall appear

before the Investigating agency as and when required. Petitioners shall

comply with the conditions stipulated in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

It is, however, clarified that the petitioners shall not try to

contact the complainant/any of the witnesses in any manner – directly or

indirectly. Any such infraction on the part of the petitioners shall entail

cancellation of their bail.

It is reiterated that none of the observations made herein above

are a reflection on the merits of the case and shall have no bearing on the

trial.

(Lisa Gill)
February 23, 2018 Judge
rts
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No

4 of 4
05-03-2018 01:33:11 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please to read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registrationJOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307,312, 313,323 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509; and also TEP, RTI etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh