Shiv Shanker, J.@mdashHeard Sri S.K. Tyagi, learned Counsel for the applicant, Sri Ramesh Sinha, learned Counsel for the complainant, learned
A.G.A. and perused the record.
2. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is not named in the F.I.R. The kidnapee Kumar Anant, aged about 3 years was
found in a lonely place on the road side on 17.11.2006 at 10.15 a.m. towards the Kakore. Therefore, kidnapee was not recovered from the
possession of the present applicant.
3. It is further contended that Rs. 50,00,000 was withdrawn by Sri Naresh Gupta, father of the kidnapee, on 17.11.2006 at about 2.30 p.m. from
the concerned Bank. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer reached at the house of informant from where he has proceeded towards the house of
the present applicant situated at Ashok Nagar, Delhi. After returning from there, the arrest of the present applicant has been shown at about 4.00
p.m. on the same day. When the kidnapee was released on the same day at 10.15 a.m. and the amount of Rs. 50,00,000 was withdrawn on the
same day at about 2.30 p.m. from the Bank. Therefore, the amount of ransom cannot be given on the same day after 2.30 p.m. to the applicant
and he could not keep the amount of ransom in his village Kakore which is at a long distance from his residence, Delhi. Therefore, Rs. 47,50,000
out of Rs. 50,00,000 as withdrawn, has been shown falsely to be recovered at his pointing out from his village and nothing was recovered from his
possession or at his pointing out.
4. Learned Counsel for the applicant further submitted that he has been falsely implicated in this case due to his younger brother Chhatrapal alias
Dev who is main accused in this case.
5. It is further contended that the statement of Lalit Kumar was recorded on 17.11.2006 in respect of supurdagi of the kidnapee wherein nothing
was stated to give the ransom to the miscreant. On the same day again his statement was recorded wherein the story of ransom has been
developed.
6. It is further contended that the applicant was got identified in the concerned police station by the witnesses. No identification parade was held in
the jail. Therefore, the identity of the present applicant is also suspicious. It is further contended that the applicant was not having any Mobile and
he had not contacted with the mother of kidnapee through any mobile for the ransom. Same has not been recovered from his possession. Father of
the applicant is running the booth of mother dairy in the same sector at NOIDA where the applicant did work. Therefore, he has been falsely
implicated in this case.
7. On the other hand, it is submitted that Rs. 50,00,000 was taken by the informant for the purpose of giving ransom from his nearest and dearest
person. Any how the name of nearest and dearest person cannot be disclosed as it may be blacked money. After taking the same, the ransom was
paid to the miscreant. Thereafter, kidnapee was released on 17.11.2006 at 10.15 a.m. The statement of informant given before the Income Tax
Officer on 16.12.2006 reveals that he was getting gross salary of Rs. 2.2 crore per annum. Therefore, the father of kidnapee had heavy status to
pay the amount of ransom at the time of the alleged incident. Therefore, it was withdrawn for repay to his nearest and dearest person. The
applicant was arrested by the police and on his pointing out Rs. 47,50,00,000 out of ransom money was recovered from his village Kakore. In
such circumstance, the small amount could be shown recovered falsely against the present applicant.
8. The F.I.R. was lodged on 13.11.2006 at 9.40 a.m. regarding occurrence dated 13.11.2006 at about 8.50 a.m. by Smt. Nidhi Gupta, mother of
the kidnapee wherein it has been stated that her son Kumar Anant aged about 3 years was kidnapped by two motorcyclists when he was being
taken from his house by his maid servant for going to school. After lodging the F.I.R. some conversation was made in between the mother of the
kidnapee and miscreants for demanding the ransom through mobile. Thereafter, the father of kidnapee had arranged Rs. 50,00,000 from his
dearest and nearest person and same amount of ransom was thrown by Lalit Kumar from train at the place indicated by the miscreant in the torch
light. After that, the kidnapee was released and he was recovered on 17.11.2006 at about 10.15 a.m. on the road side towards Kakore.
9. The name of nearest and dearest person has not been disclosed due to some complication. However, the father of the victim had withdrawn Rs.
50,00,000 from the concerned Bank from his account for the payment to his nearest and dearest person as per contention of prosecution.
Applicant was allegedly arrested by police on 17.11.2006 at about 4.00 p.m. and on his pointing out Rs. 47,50,00,00,000 was recovered from
ransom amount at his village Kakore and in the same area kidnapee was released. Such recovery of huge amount of Rs. 47,50,000 could not be
planted against the applicant. On the other hand the applicant has not claimed such amount of his own. Therefore, the most part of ransom money
has been recovered at the pointing out of the present applicant within six hours after releasing the kidnapee. No sufficient explanation has been
given as to why he has been falsely implicated in this case by the police.
10. Therefore, it is a case of heinous crime of kidnapping of three years child for the purpose of ransom of Rs. 50,00,000 and he was released
after getting the ransom amount and after six hours of his release Rs. 47,50,00,000 was recovered by the police from the possession of the present
applicant.
11. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submission made by the learned Counsel for the applicant, I do not find any
force in the bail application.
12. Consequently, his bail application is hereby rejected.
However, the trial court is directed to decide Case Crime No. 917 of 2006, expeditiously as far as possible within four months according to law.