8 threat calls made to complainant from Gurugram jail landline

Taking cognisance of allegations that a complainant in a criminal intimidation and rioting with a deadly weapon case received threat calls from a landline installed inside Gurugram District Jail, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ordered a probe into the matter.

Justice Surya Partap Singh said it was alleged during the course of a bail petition’s hearing by the counsel for the complainant that he had been receiving threat calls from the landline number installed on the jail premises and screenshots showing eight calls were placed on record.

“If the allegations are true, it is a very serious matter, which requires a thorough probe. Hence, it is hereby ordered that the copy of this order be forwarded to the Director-General of Police (Prisons) with a direction to get the matter inquired by a senior-ranking responsible officer, and take appropriate action against the erring officers/officials,” the Bench said.

The directions came as the court refused bail to the accused booked under multiple provisions of the BNS and the Arms Act after holding that his conduct showed an attempt to influence witnesses and tamper with evidence.

The judge held that the ground for the petitioner’s release on bail was not made out after the Bench was told that an affidavit produced by the accused — purportedly retracting the complainant’s allegations — was a result of pressure and threats.

The Bench, during the hearing, was told that the affidavit specifically mentioned that the petitioner’s name figured in the FIR on account of some misconception. As such, the entire prosecution case stood demolished and he was entitled for the benefit of bail.

The complainant, present in court, denied the affidavit relied upon by the accused, stating that it had been obtained under coercion. “The affidavit being relied upon by counsel for the petitioner cannot be taken into consideration, as the affidavit was sworn by the complainant because he was pressurised and threatened of dire consequences by the petitioner,” the counsel contended.

Taking note of the rival contentions, the Bench said: “The effort of the petitioner leading to affidavit dated September 1 in itself speaks volumes that the petitioner is already making all-out efforts to influence the witnesses and tamper with the evidence. In such circumstances, in my considered opinion, at this stage when the statement of private witnesses is yet to be recorded in this case, the release of petitioner on bail may result into miscarriage of justice. Thus, it is hereby held that instant case is a case, wherein any ground for release of petitioner on bail is not made out. Hence, the instant petition for bail is hereby dismissed, accordingly”.