Allahabad High Court
Raju And Another vs State Of U. P. on 11 March, 2011
Bench: Rajesh Chandra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?RESERVED
Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26102 of 2010
Petitioner :- Raju And Another
Respondent :- State Of U. P.
Petitioner Counsel :- Amit Kumar Chaudhary,D.K.Diwan,Om Vikas Chaudhary
Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Rajesh Chandra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the complainant and also learned A.G.A.
The complainant Manoj Kumar submitted a report at police station Etmadulla, District Agra on 08.04.2008, mentioning therein that his brother Sunil Kumar aged about 27 years and Bholey (cousin brother of the informant) had started from Kamalganj District Farrukhabad on 24.02.2008 in a truck and unloaded the material at Aligarh. The truck was again loaded with potato and the goods were unloaded at Agra on 26.02.2008. Thereafter, Sunil Kumar and Bholey got missing with the truck. A vigorous search was made for them but they were not traced. When the investigation was going on with regard to the above report of Manoj Kumar, one Pulai submitted an application dated 03.03.2008 under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kannauj alleging that his son Bholey and the owner of the truck namely Sunil had been taken by the accused Raju, Chiranjiv and Pramod from Village Mohan Nangla, P.S. Chibramau, District Kannauj on 24.02.2008 at 6:00 p.m. and thereafter his son Bholey did not come back. The informant Pulai received a telephone call on 15.03.2008 in which an amount of Rs. 1.5 lacs was demanded as ransom and Pulai was asked to contact at the resident of Raju. Pulai and his wife came to the house of Raju where they were told that their son Bholey and the other abductee Sunil are in their possession. Pulai was also made to talk to his son on telephone and at that time Bholey had requested his father Pulai to get him released. This application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was allowed and then under the orders of the Magistrate a case at crime no. nill of 2008 was registered at P.S. Chibramau, for the offence under Section 365 I.P.C.
During investigation the mother and the wife of Sunil stated that when Sunil and Bholey had left the village with the truck on 24.02.2008, they were not accompanied by anyone else.
During investigation the statement of Pulai was also recorded on 28.09.2009 in which he disowned this theory that on 24.02.2008 when his son Bholey accompanied by Sunil had left the village on the truck, accused Raju, Chiranjiv and Pramod were also accompanying them. He clarified that only Bholey and Sunil had left the village on the truck and the above three persons were not accompanying them.
The statement of Pulai was again on recorded on 27.12.2009 in which he developed this story that after unloading the goods at Agra his son Bholey had talked him on a telephone and at that time he had told that the accused Raju, Chiranjiv and Pramod had taken the possession of the truck and he as well as Sunil are with them. Since then the whereabouts of Bholey and Sunil are not known. Smt. Bitta Devi W/o Pulai also gave the same statement that the above conversation took place between the Pulai and Bholey on 26.02.2008. Smt. Rubeen W/o Bholey also gave similar statement.
During investigation the statement of Smt. Geeta W/o Sunil was recorded on 31.03.2010 in which she stated that the accused Raju, Pramod and Chiranjiv had demanded a ransom of Rs. 1.5 lacs on the telephone. Similar statement was given by Smt. Meena Devi, mother of Sunil.
Learned A.G.A. argued that it has come in the investigation that after unloading the goods at Agra, the accused-applicants Raju and Pramod along with Chiranjiv had taken the possession of the truck on 26.02.2008 and at that time both missing persons namely Sunil and Bholey were with them. These accused had also demanded a ransom from the family members of Bholey as well as Sunil and thus there is evidence of last seen against the applicants.
Learned counsel for the applicants argued that Pulai in his application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. had taken the stand that the applicants and Chiranjiv had accompanied Bholey and Sunil when they left the village on 24.02.2008 in a truck but that story was given up by Pulai and now it is admitted to the prosecution as well that nobody accompanied Bholey and Sunil, when they left the village on 24.02.2008. It was also argued that if any conversation had taken place between Pulai and his son Bholey and between the family members of Sunil and Sunil on 26.02.2008 then this fact ought to have been mentioned in the missing report which was lodged by Manoj Kumar as well as in the application given by Pulai under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. He further contended that the story regarding above of conversation on telephone as to the demand of ransom has been developed in the statements which were recorded say about two years after the incident.
Learned counsel for the applicants also pointed out that they are in jail since 05.07.2010.
I considered over the respective arguments and from the entire above noted facts, I am satisfied that there is no clinching evidence against applicants as on today and as such they are entitled for bail.
Let the accused-applicants Raju and Pramod, be released on bail in case crime no. 515 of 2008, under sections 364 A, 394 I.P.C., P.S. Etmadulla, District Agra, on their executing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned on following conditions that:
1.The accused-applicants shall attend the court in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed by them.
2.They shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which they are accused.
3.They shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.
4.They will not temper with the evidence.
5.The applicants shall not seek any adjournment when the prosecution witnesses are present.
In case any condition is violated the courts concerned shall inform the High Court so that necessary steps may be taken for the cancellation of the bail.
Order Date :- 11.3.2011
M/A.
