Delhi High Court
Akhilesh vs State Nct Of Delhi on 28 May, 2012
Author: V.K.Shali
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Bail Application No.501 of 2012
Date of decision: 28.5.2012
AKHILESH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. K. Singhal, Advocate.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for the State.
Mr. Pankaj Vivek, Advocate for the
complainant.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)
1. This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of
regular bail on behalf of the petitioner.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The
main contention of the learned counsel is that the petitioner
deserves to be enlarged on bail on the basis of parity. It is
contended by him that the co-accused persons, namely, Hemant
and Lalit, who had major role in the abduction and demand of
ransom from the victim's father, have already been enlarged on
bail by the learned trial court and, therefore, on the basis of
parity, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail. It was
contended that so far as the accused Hemant and Lalit are
concerned, recovery of the car has been affected at their
instance and it is also established that they were having
telephonic conversation with the family of the victim, Santraj. As
against this, it is the case of the learned counsel that so far as
the present petitioner is concerned, the victim has been
recovered from his house and at the time of recovery, his brother
Sarju Singh was found to be guarding the premises. It is
contended that since Sarju Singh was found to be present at the
actual place, from where the victim was recovered and merely
because he was the brother of the present petitioner, that could
not be a ground for denying the benefit of bail to the petitioner.
It was also contended by the learned counsel that in the order of
the learned trial court rejecting the bail application of the present
petitioner, it has been erroneously noticed that no recovery has
been affected from the co-accused persons, namely, Hemant and
Lalit and, therefore, that is against the facts brought on record.
3. As against this, the learned APP has vehemently contested
the grant of bail to the present petitioner. It has been contended
by him that the prosecution evidence is almost complete. Even
the examination-in-chief of the Investigating Officer and one
more witness has already been recorded and they have not been
subjected to cross-examination by the present petitioner despite
sufficient opportunities having been given to him. It is stated
that the brother of the present petitioner, Sarju Singh, was found
to be guarding the place where the victim was recovered. It is
further stated that Sarju Singh was released on interim bail after
which, he has absconded and there is every possibility that if the
present petitioner is extended the benefit of bail, he may follow
the suit like his brother and flee from the processes of law.
Accordingly, grant of bail to the present petitioner has been
opposed.
4. I have considered the respective contentions and also gone
through the record. There is no doubt that the petitioner is
facing a trial for one of the most heinous offences of kidnapping
with an intention to demand ransom. This is an offence
punishable under Section 364-A IPC, which carries sentence of
life imprisonment or which may extent even to death.
5. In the instant case, on 30.12.2002, the complainant, Karan
Singh, s/o Sh. Nathu Ram, r/o Village Wazirabad, Gurgaon,
Haryana, lodged a complaint that his younger son, Santraj, a
property dealer, having his office in DLF Gurgaon, aged 22 years,
was called by an unknown girl on his mobile at about 11 a.m. to
meet him at 12 noon near Sector 3, Dwarka. The victim,
Santraj, along with his two friends, Ajay and Ashok, had gone to
NSIT in his own silver colour Santro Car bearing No. HR-26 R
4156. The victim had dropped both his friends at about a
distance of 100 yards from the place where he was to meet the
said girl. It is alleged that Santraj went along with the girl and
never came back. Subsequently, it was revealed that Santraj
was actually kidnapped and the kidnappers, namely, the present
petitioner and his co-accused persons demanded a sum of Rs.1
crore from Karan Singh, father of Santraj, as ransom. The victim
was kept in captivity in the house of the present petitioner at
Village Mastapur, District Hardoi (U.P.). The other co-accused
persons who gave a shape to this nefarious activity of the
present petitioner are Kamal Gulia, Hemant and Lalit, etc. No
doubt, the co-accused Hemant and Lalit have been extended the
benefit of grant of regular bail by the learned trial court but so
far as the application for grant of bail to the present petitioner is
concerned, that has been rejected on the ground that the case of
the present petitioner is distinguishable from the facts of the
other two co-accused persons, who have been extended the
benefit of bail. In this regard, no doubt, the learned trial court
seems to have inadvertently observed that the police did not
affect any recovery from the co-accused Hemant and Lalit but
actually recovery of not only the car but also various other items
were affected from them. To that extent, the order seems to be
factually incorrect but the fact of the matter remains that the
present petitioner was a kingpin in the entire incident. It was he
at whose house the victim was kept in captivity while the other
co-accused persons were demanding a huge amount of money as
ransom. The brother of the present petitioner was also found to
be guarding the victim at the time when the recovery of the
victim was affected. The petitioner has been identified in court
by the victim, therefore, prima facie, the prosecution has been
able to establish the guilt of the present petitioner that there are
serious allegations against him, which are not of the nature
which can be overlooked for grant of bail.
6. In addition to this, the co-accused, who happens to be the
brother of the present petitioner, namely, Sarju Singh, was
extended the benefit of interim bail during the pendency of the
trial. However, Sarju Singh, after getting released on bail, has
gone underground and is not traceable. There is every likelihood
that the present petitioner also, if released on bail, is likely to
follow the same path which has been followed by his brother.
This is also a fact which is dissuades the court from extending
the benefit of grant of regular bail.
7. The third ground for grant of bail to the petitioner is the
continued incarceration by the court for the last more than nine
years without any conclusion of the trial. In this regard, it has
been pointed out by the learned APP that the delay in disposal of
the trial is only on account of the conduct of the present
petitioner. It has been stated that the matter was earlier listed
before the Fast Track Court, however, it was at the instance of
the present petitioner that the case was transferred to a normal
court, which has caused the delay. It is further stated that the
petitioner had taken 36 adjournments for the purpose of cross-
examining the main witnesses earlier when the trial had started.
Even now it is contended that the prosecution has already got
the examination-in-chief of the Investigating Officer and, one
more witness recorded and the petitioners are still not able to
cross-examine the said witnesses and have been repeatedly
taking dates and thus, indulging in dilatory tactics.
8. On the basis of the aforesaid facts and keeping in view the
totality of circumstances, I feel it is not a fit case where the
petitioner deserves to be extended the benefit of regular bail.
The bail application of the present petitioner is accordingly
rejected.
9. A copy of this order be sent to the learned trial court with
the request to expedite the trial.
10. Expression of any opinion hereinabove may not be treated
as an expression on the merits of the case.
V.K. SHALI, J.
MAY 28, 2012
'AA'
