Gurugram jail landline used to threaten witness: High court orders probe

Taking cognizance of allegations that a complainant in a criminal intimidation and rioting with a deadly weapon case received threatening 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 asserted that it was alleged during the hearing of a bail petition by the counsel for the complainant that he had been receiving threatening calls from the landline number installed on the District Jail premises, and screenshots showing eight calls were also 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 a copy of this order be forwarded to the Director-General of Police (Prisons) with a direction to have the matter investigated by a senior, responsible officer, and take appropriate action against the erring officers/officials,” the Bench asserted.

The directions came as Justice Surya Partap Singh refused bail to the accused, who was booked under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Arms Act, after holding that his conduct showed an attempt to influence witnesses and tamper with evidence.

Justice Surya Partap Singh held that the grounds for the petitioner’s release on bail were 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 the petitioner’s name was mentioned in the FIR on account of some misconception. As such, the entire prosecution case was demolished, and he was entitled to 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 pressured and threatened with dire consequences by the petitioner,” the counsel contended.

Taking note of the rival contentions, the Bench asserted: “The effort of the petitioner leading to the affidavit dated September 1 in itself speaks volumes, indicating 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 statements of private witnesses are yet to be recorded in this case, the release of the petitioner on bail may result in a miscarriage of justice.

Thus, it is hereby held that this is a case wherein grounds for the release of the petitioner on bail are not made out. Hence, the instant petition for bail is hereby dismissed accordingly".