Allahabad High Court
Rinku @ Sonu Jatav vs State Of U.P. on 31 May, 2017
Bench: Karuna Nand Bajpayee
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?A.F.R.
Court No. - 43
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19870 of 2017
Applicant :- Rinku @ Sonu Jatav
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Krishan Mohan Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
This application has been filed on behalf of applicant seeking the release of applicant on bail in Case Crime No.421 of 2015, u/s 364A I.P.C., Police Station-Bharthana, District-Etawah.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.
Perused the record.
The only submission that has been raised by the counsel for the applicant is that the co-accused Amit @ Dinku has been granted bail by another bench of this Court vide order dated 16.12.2016 and the applicant is having no criminal history apart from present case and has been falsely implicated in present case due to his hot conversation with the local police of Police station -Bharthana which took place while he was coming from Faizabad.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that this is a case of ghastly crime in which a boy of tender age of nine years was kidnapped and a ransom of Rs.2,25,00000/- was demanded. Submission is that the F.I.R. dated 19.10.2015 was lodged by the father of victim boy about his son gone missing on 18.10.2015 at about 5.00 O'clock with suspicion of kidnapping by some unknown person. Further submission is that during the course of investigation the particulars of victim boy were obtained by the police and on 30.10.2015 the victim boy was recovered by the police after an encounter with the accused persons and the case was converted from offence u/s 363 I.P.C. to section 364 I.P.C. Submission is that the local police had got information from its informer that the kidnapped boy will be transported in a Maruti Omni car from Bharthana Vidhuna Marg towards Achhalda via upper Ganga canal and on the basis of this information, the police team in three parts was deployed and the accused persons were intercepted, whereupon accused persons shot the fire towards police party with intention to kill but anyhow the police team controlled the situation and arrested seven accused persons and recovered the victim boy safely from said Maruti Omni car. A country made pistol of 315 bore, two live cartridges and one empty cartridges were recovered from the accused-applicant beside recoveries of firearms from co-accused persons. Submission is that later on when subsequent explanatory statement (Majeed bayan) of informant was recorded on 14.11.2016, he disclosed that on 25.10.2015 he had received call on his mobile at about 9.47 and 9.55 O'clock, in which demand of ransom of Rs.2,25,00000/- was raised. The father of the victim further disclosed that he had the business of jewelry and was a well reputed person of society and immediately after receiving the information, he had informed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Etawah and also informed his family members about the demand of ransom and further stated that later on his son was safely recovered by the local police with due diligence. Submission is that the said subsequent disclosure of ransom during the investigation cannot give any benefit to the accused in view of the state of mind of father whose son was in the cruel hands of merciless kidnappers. Submission is that the statement of victim boy was also recorded in which he stated about the details of cruelty meted out to him by the accused-applicant and his associates. It has also been submitted by the learned A.G.A. that the call detail records of mobile conversation regarding demand of ransom was obtained by the Investigating Officer and has been made part of the case diary which fortifies the case of prosecution. It has also been pointed out that the informant has provided the Compact Disc (C.D.) of recorded conversation of demand of ransom and the Investigating Officer has also taken note thereof in the case diary which further forties the case of prosecution. Learned A.G.A. has emphasized upon the findings of the Investigating Officer in this regard which have been noted in Case Diary PARCHA No.20 dated 26.10.2016 confirming the demand of huge ransom of Rs.2,25,00000/- as a price of kidnapped person. Further submission is that recovery of the kidnapped boy and the arrest of the applicant on spot along with the kidnapped victim conclusively clinches the issue against the applicant. It is so obvious that the kidnapping was done with the rapacious greed to realize the money and the crime in which the applicant indulged is grievous in nature and speaks about the depravity of applicant's character. Learned A.G.A. has also pointed out that apart from criminal case in question, three other criminal cases were also registered against the accused-applicant.
Ordinarily, this Court tries to maintain the principle of parity but the law on the subject is too well settled to be elaborated upon. The tradition of parity is not any absolute rule of law. The facts and circumstances of the case are conclusively incriminating and the guilt of the applicant appears to be a proven fact as much as such things are capable of being proven. The submission of the counsel that the discretion of granting bail should be liberally exercised, has simply failed to move this Court in the wake of the depraved nature of crime and the abundance of material which is available against the applicant demonstrating his complicity in the crime. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this particular case, this Court finds itself constrained not to allow the bail as the liberal step of acting otherwise revolts against the judicial conscience of this Court.
Looking to the nature of offence, its gravity and the evidence in support of it and the overall circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has not made out a case for bail. Therefore, the prayer for bail of the applicant is rejected.
It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
Order Date :- 31.5.2017
M. Kumar
