Gautam Jain vs State (Nct Of Delhi)
2015 Latest Caselaw 8969 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                               Judgment delivered on : December 02, 2015
+     BAIL APPLN. 2491/2015
      GAUTAM JAIN                                        ..... Petitioner
                         Through:     Mr.Michael Peter, Advocate

                         versus

      STATE (NCT OF DELHI)                                ..... Respondent
                    Through:          Mr. G.M. Farooqui, Additional Public
                                      Prosecutor for the State with
                                      Inspector Parmjeet Singh, Police
                                      Station Burari, Delhi.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

                                  JUDGMENT

P.S.TEJI, J.

1. By this petition filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 the petitioner seeks bail in a case registered vide FIR

No. 383/13 under Section 302 IPC at Police Station Burari, Delhi.

2. The petitioner is charged with the offence punishable under

Section 302 of IPC and is aggrieved by the order dated 5th October

2015, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Central,

Delhi, vide which the bail application filed by the petitioner has been

rejected.

3. The case of the prosecution is that one Mr. Kishan Lal

(complainant herein) made a statement that on 21.09.2013, his 13

years old son - Jatin Dhingra went from the house at 11.30 AM for

taking a copy from his one friend but he did not return home. Despite

extensive search his son could not be traced out. The complainant in

his complaint raised suspicion that someone lured Jatin Dhingra and

took him away and the legal action should be taken against him.

Accordingly, a case under Section 363 of IPC was registered and

investigation started. Later, the mother of Jatin Dhingra informed that

a ransom call for Rs.10 lac has been received on her mobile number

(9718703685) from mobile No.8744806631 and also that the caller

said that otherwise, he will kill her son. Thereafter, case under Section

364A of Indian Penal Code was also added. During investigation, it

was revealed that said number belongs to one Manoj Kumar but it

could not be traced as to who has made the ransom call from the said

mobile number.

4. On the basis of statement of Manoj Kumar, the petitioner herein

was arrested who disclosed that he had given Manoj's voter ID to his

friend Sandeep Kumar, and Sandeep Kumar had told him that he has

to kidnap a child and receive ransom and he also assured the

petitioner that some share from the ransom amount will be given to

him. Later on, after investigation it was found that the kidnapped boy

was killed and his body was thrown in Canal (drain) at Nangli Puna

and the offences under Section 419/468/471/302 Indian Penal Code

were added.

5. Mr.Michael Peter, counsel for the petitioner contended that the

applicant is neither a part of conspiracy in kidnapping the child nor in

committing murder of the child. It is also contended that there is no

recovery at the instance of the petitioner and nothing incriminating is

found against the petitioner after examination of fourteen public

witnesses. The ground of false implication in the case is also raised

and it is also submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since

23.09.2013. At last it is also submitted that the petitioner is a

permanent resident of Delhi and has deep roots in the society,

therefore the petitioner ought to be granted bail in the aforesaid case.

6. To oppose the contentions raised by learned counsel for the

petitioner, Mr. G.M. Farooqui, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

for the State submitted that the petitioner is clearly involved in the

conspiracy of kidnapping the child, with other co-accused persons and

the chain of offence started from the petitioner herein, therefore the

petitioner be not released on bail.

7. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the

petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State

and also gone through the material placed on record.

8. After considering the contents of the present petition as well as

the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, this Court observes that the

it was the petitioner who had provided the certificates of Manoj to the

main accused - Sandeep and others, and it was the petitioner who was

assured by co-accused Sandeep that he will be given his share out of

the ransom amount received on account of kidnapping of the child.

This Court also observes that out of 46 witnesses, only 14 witnesses

are examined and it is also clear from the facts on record that the

charge sheet of the case has already been filed and the petitioner has

been charged with the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC

and since the trial is at an initial stage therefore, the tampering of the

evidence cannot be ruled out.

9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present

case, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner - Gautam Jain

does not deserve the concession of bail in this case, at this stage.

Accordingly, the present application filed by the petitioner - Gautam

Jain is dismissed at this stage.

10. It is made clear that the expression of any opinion hereinbefore

may not be treated as an expression on the merits of the case.

(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE DECEMBER 02, 2015 pkb