Delhi High Court
Ashish [email protected] vs State on 25 March, 2022
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on:25th March, 2022
+ BAIL APPLN. 26/2022
ASHISH [email protected] ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Dolly Sharma, Advocate.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP
for the State with SI Manish
Kr., PS-Ranhola.
%
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
1. By way of this application under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 ["CrPC"], the applicant seeks regular bail in
FIR No. 609/2017, dated 08.09.2017, registered in Police Station
Ranhola, originally under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
["IPC"].
2. The FIR was registered on the complaint of one Subhash Gupta,
which stated that, on 07.09.2017 at about 6:45 PM, his son Santosh
(aged about five and half years old) had gone out to play near his
house but did not return.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:25.03.2022
3. The petitioner was arrested in connection with this offence on
09.09.2017 and remains in continuous judicial custody since then.
4. The charge sheet was filed on 05.12.2017, wherein the
statement of the complainant was recorded that his son was last seen
on 07.09.2017 with his tenant Surender Kumar. It is alleged that, upon
receiving a call from the complainant, who called from the telephone
of one Raju Prasad, Surender Kumar demanded a ransom of ₹10
lakhs. As far as the present petitioner is concerned, the charge sheet
records that the complainant also received a call made by the
petitioner, and demanded the aforesaid amount, failing which the
petitioner threatened to kill the child of the complainant. The mobile
number was traced to an address in Ludhiana.
5. The investigating team thereafter proceeded to Ludhiana, where
two persons were spotted on the street, alongwith a boy, who was
identified by the complainant as his son. The two persons were
apprehended and thereafter interrogated and found to be Surender
Kumar and the petitioner herein. After interrogation, it is stated that
three accused, i.e. Surender Kumar, Sunil Kumar and the petitioner
were arrested. The mobile phones of the three accused have also been
taken by the police in their custody.
6. Ms. Dolly Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted
that the trial of the petitioner is in progress and seven out of twenty
witnesses cited by the prosecution have already been examined. She
stated that all the material witnesses have been examined and only
police officials were left to be examined. Ms. Sharma emphasized that
the cross examination of PW-7-Raju Prasad, who is the only
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:25.03.2022
independent witness, did not support the prosecution's case, and that
the prosecution had not placed any evidence of a telephone call from
the petitioner to demand ransom. Ms. Sharma also relied on an order
dated 01.05.2019 by which co-accused-Sunil Kumar has been granted
bail by the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court recorded that the
material evidence had already been examined and that the said
accused has no prior criminal involvement. Ms. Sharma also cites the
order in Pankaj Goyal @ Pankaj Kumar Goyal @ Bittoo vs. State of
NCT Delhi [BAIL APPLN. 1516/2021, decided on 16.08.2021]
wherein bail was granted to an accused in an FIR registered under
Sections 364A/120B/34 of the IPC.
7. Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor,
submitted that the role of Sunil Kumar was entirely different from the
petitioner, in whose custody the child was ultimately found. She
further submitted that the petitioner is named in the statement of the
child recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC and he has also
identified the petitioner. It is also stated in the Status Report that an
application filed by the petitioner for bail was rejected by the Sessions
Court on 08.11.2017. Ms. Dahiya further submitted that the offence
pertains to kidnapping of a minor child which is a serious offence, and
the petitioner ought not to be enlarged on bail.
8. Ms. Dahiya confirmed, upon instructions from the Investigating
Officer ["IO"], that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view
that this is a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioner at this stage.
Although, the role attributed to the petitioner in the commission of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:25.03.2022
offence is different to the role attributed to Sunil Kumar, that is not a
conclusive consideration. The trial, being at an advance stage with
only official witnesses left to be examined, the chances of the
petitioner being able to influence witnesses is low. He has no criminal
antecedents which might weigh with the Court to deny bail. He has
already been in custody for approximately four and half years.
10. Although the offence with which the petitioner is charged is no
doubt is a serious offence, the Supreme Court has made it clear that
the seriousness of the charge cannot be the sole ground to deny bail to
an accused. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra
vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2012) 1 SCC 40 [paragraphs 21
to 25] may be referred to in this connection. The said judgment has
also, very recently, been followed by this Court in Surender Singh
Bhati vs. The State [BAIL APPLN. 3750/2021, decided on
17.01.2022].
11. The status report in the present case does not disclose any
apprehension with regard to the petitioner tampering with evidence or
being a flight risk.
12. Keeping all these factors in mind, it is directed that the
petitioner is released on bail, subject to the following conditions: -
A. The petitioner will furnish a personal bond in the sum of
₹50,000/- with two sureties with like amount to the satisfaction
of the Trial Court, one of whom must be a blood relative or the
spouse/parent-in-law of the petitioner.
B. The petitioner will give all his mobile numbers to the IO and
keep them operational at all times.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:25.03.2022
C. The petitioner will give the address where he intends to reside
to the IO and will inform the IO and the Trial Court in the event
of any change in his address.
D. The petitioner will appear before the Trial Court on each date of
hearing.
E. The petitioner will not directly or indirectly tamper with the
evidence and will not contact the complainant or his family
members or any of the witnesses in any manner.
F. Violations of any of these conditions will results in cancellation
of bail granted to the petitioner by this order.
13. It is made clear that the observations in this order are only for
the disposal of the application for bail and will not prejudice the
parties in the trial.
14. A copy of this order be communicated to the concerned Jail
Superintendent electronically for information.
PRATEEK JALAN, J.
March 25, 2022
'Bp'/
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:25.03.2022
