Hazi Abdul Rajjak vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The High Court dismissed the bail application. The Court considered the submissions of both parties, the material and evidence on record, the seriousness of the offence, and the applicant's criminal antecedents and conduct. The Court found that in view of these factors, it was not deemed fit to enlarge the applicant on bail. The reasoning implicitly acknowledges the gravity of the charges, the alleged threat to witnesses (leading to Nikhat Khan turning hostile), the recovery of forged documents, and the extensive criminal history of the applicant, which the State argued explained the delay in reporting and the fear instilled in victims. The Court's decision to deny bail is based on the cumulative assessment of these factors, aligning with the principles discussed in the cited judgments regarding the refusal of bail in cases with significant criminal records or threats to witnesses.

Facts

This is a bail application filed by Hazi Abdul Rajjak under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. The applicant is seeking regular bail in connection with FIR No. 257/2023 registered at Police Station Omti, Jabalpur, for offences including Sections 195-A, 384, 386, 420, 120-B, 34, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC. The applicant has been in detention since December 21, 2023. The prosecution story alleges that the applicant, along with co-accused, extorted money from the complainant and threatened to make the complainant's daughter give false evidence. The FIR was lodged after a significant delay. The applicant's counsel argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated, many cases against him have been discharged or revoked, and the trial court had discharged him from Sections 384 and 386 IPC. The State opposed the bail, highlighting the applicant's extensive criminal history, declaration as a history-sheeter, and the alleged operation of an organized gang.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. given the serious nature of the alleged offences, the applicant's criminal antecedents, and the prosecution's contention of an organized criminal gang? Petitioner's Arguments: - The applicant has been falsely implicated and is in jail since December 21, 2023. - The FIR was lodged with an inordinate delay of approximately 2 years and 9 months without proper explanation. - The applicant has been discharged in other cases and preventive detention orders against him have been revoked. - The victim's daughter, Nikhat Khan, has not stated anything against the applicant in her recorded statements. - The trial court discharged the applicant from Sections 384 and 386 of the IPC. - The applicant's firm deposited a significant amount of GST, making the demand of Rs. 1,50,000/- incompatible. - Reliance was placed on Apex Court decisions in *Maulana Mohammed Amir Rashadi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh* and *Prabhakar Tewari VS. State of Uttar Pradesh*. Revenue/State's Arguments: - The applicant was declared a gang history sheeter in 2001 and his history sheet was updated in 2023, indicating membership in a gang of 46 hardcore criminals. - Victims did not come forward due to fear of the applicant and his gang, explaining the delay in FIR lodging. - The applicant has been continuously involved in criminal cases since 1991, with over 42 cases registered against him. - Reliance was placed on Apex Court decisions in *Pooran Mal Vs. State of Haryana*, *Karan Vs. State of M.P.*, *Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh*, *Neeru Yadav Vs. State of U.P.*, *Harijit Singh Vs. Inderpreet Singh*, and *Naveen singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh*. - The objector's counsel argued that the applicant is a habitual offender, threatened witnesses, and that forged documents were recovered.