Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J.@mdashThe applicant seeks bail in connection with FIR no. 577 of 2010, under Sections 302, 201, 120-B, 414, 364-A/34 IPC, P.S. Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered the grounds taken in the bail application and perused the documents on record.
3. The complainant''s son Sachin was said to have been abducted on 24.11.2010, by unknown persons, who, on that day, at about 6:00 pm, rang up to the complainant and demanded ransom of Rs. 2 crores. The complainant informed about the incident to co-accused Akhil Agarwal, who was the closest friend of Sachin, the person abducted. The efforts for search of the abducted one was made on that day, whereafter the FIR was registered. It was alleged by the prosecution that from the next day, Akhil Agarwal, who was earlier searching the abducted person with the complainant, started advising him that he should negotiate with the callers to save the life of his son. This made complainant suspicious about the co-accused Akhil Agarwal. On 26.11.2010, Sachin was said to have been killed and his dead body was found within the territorial limits of police station Mudapandey, District Moradabad. During investigation, according to the prosecution, Akhil Agarwal was said to be in touch with his mobile with the abductors, namely, Javed and the present applicant.
4. The second bail application of the present applicant was dismissed on merits by this Court, vide order dated 19.03.2012. The third bail application of the applicant was also dismissed, vide order dated 06.03.2013 holding that no new ground for bail was made out. The trial court was, however, directed to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible keeping in mind that the applicant is in jail. It is a case of circumstantial evidence. It is a case of abduction and ransom in which the abducted person was killed. The bail application of co-accused Javed was also dismissed by this Court, vide order dated 01.01.2013. Subsequent thereto, the bail application of co-accused Javed was allowed by this Court, vide order dated 27.12.2013. [It is a new ground for entertaining present bail application of the applicant.] Another co-accused Akhil Agarwal was also granted bail by this Court on 30.08.2011.
5. On merits, it would not have been a fit case of bail, but, for the reason that co-accused Javed, with almost similar role, was granted bail by this Court, vide order dated 27.12.2013. The applicant is, therefore, entitled to bail only on the ground of parity, who is in jail since 27.11.2010.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, a case of bail is made out in favour of the present applicant on the ground of parity. The bail application is allowed. Let the accused-applicant be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties, each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the A.C.J.M., Kashipur.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant stated that he has an apprehension that the applicant will threaten the complainant, once he is released on bail. Considering the seriousness of the offence, it is provided that if the applicant threatens the complainant or tries to tamper with the evidence, it will be open to the complainant to move an application for cancellation of bail before the Sessions Judge concerned.
