Ashok Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravindra Singh, J.—This bail application has been filed by the applicant Ashok Kumar with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. RC-11(S)/2007 under Sections 120B and 384, I.P.C., P. S. A.C.U. V/S.C.R. II/C.B.I., New Delhi.

The prosecution story in brief is that an F.I.R. was lodged by Satish Kumar, brother of the deceased on 29.10.2006 at P. S. Syana District Bulandshahr in Case Crime No. 157 of 2006 alleging therein that the deceased Dr. Kavita Rani, lecturer in Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut had gone to her village Dhansurpur District Bulandshahr on 19.10.2006 to attend Diwali festival. On 23.10.2006, when she was returning back to Meerut she disappeared and her whereabouts could not be known, all the three cell phones No. 931961612140, 9997123627, 98377701434 were switched off. Its information was given at P. S. Syana on 29.10.2006. Thereafter, the police of P. S. Syana made search of the room of the deceased in Indira Gandhi Mahila Chhatrawas, Meerut on 1.11.2006 and some letters written by the deceased were taken in possession in which the name of co-accused Ravindra Pradhan and his brother Harendra Pradhan was also mentioned alongwith the name and phone numbers of other persons. In these letters, threat was given to the deceased and her family members by the co-accused Ravindra Pradhan on the telephone and she was asked to marry with him otherwise she and her family members would be done to death. It was suspected that she was abducted and killed by the above mentioned persons. Thereafter, the matter was transferred to P.S. Civil Lines, on the point of territorial jurisdiction, where it was registered on 22.12.2006 in Case Crime No. 478 of 2006. Thereafter, investigation was transferred by the Government to C.B.I. where it was registered as C.C. No. RC-11(S)/2007 in which charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicant. Now the matter is pending in the Court of learned Special Judge C.B.I. (Anti-Corruption) U.P. (East) Ghaziabad vide S.T. No. 428 of 2007. It is alleged that the applicant and other co-accused persons hatched a conspiracy in furtherance of that conspiracy Dr. Kavita Rani was abducted and killed. The co-accused Ravindra Pradhan and the deceased prepared a C.D. having sexual relation of the deceased with Dr. Mirajuddin Ahmad, the then Minister of U.P. Government and on the basis of that C.D. Dr. Mirajuddin Ahmad was black mailed and in lieu of return of that C.D. Dr. Mirajuddin Ahmad paid an amount of Rs. 35,00.000 to Yogesh alias Yogendra, the C.D. was brought by the applicant from the co-accused Ravindra Pradhan and it was handed over to Dr. Mirajuddin Ahmad. During investigation the statements of Dr. Mirajuddin Ahmad, Ashu alias Amit, Vijay Pal and Rajesh Kumar Yadav and some other persons were recorded by the C.B.I. and from the possession of Yogesh alias Yogendra, memory chip containing video recording of sexual intimacy between the deceased Dr. Kavita Rani was also recovered on 20.12.2006 and one C.D. containing video recording of sexual intimacy between the deceased and Dr. Mirajuddin Ahmad was seized from the house of Amar Malik, an advocate of Mathura on the disclosure of the applicant.

The allegation against the applicant and other co-accused persons namely Ravindra Pradhan, Yogesh alias Yogendra and Sultan Singh is that they hatched a conspiracy. In furtherance of that conspiracy Dr. Kavita Rani was abducted and killed. The case is based on circumstantial evidence.

Heard Sri Satish Trivedi, senior advocate assisted by Sri Jagdev Singh learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and Sri G. S. Hazela, learned Counsel for the C.B.I.

It is contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that in the present case the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. There is no direct eye-witness to show that the deceased was killed by the applicant. The case is based on circumstantial evidence. There is no circumstance to show that the applicant was involved in the commission of abduction and murder of the deceased. The only allegation against the applicant is that he brought the C.D. having video film of sexual intimacy of the deceased with Dr. Mirajuddin Ahmad and the same was handed over to Dr. Mirajuddin Ahmad. Even in lieu of that handing over the C.D. no money was given by Dr. Mirajuddin Ahmad to the applicant, it was given to the co-accused Yogesh alias Yogendra. The applicant was having no relationship with the main accused Ravindra Pradhan. The applicant was having no concern with Dr. Kavita Rani and other co-accused persons. Though there is no evidence to show that Dr. Kavita Rani has been killed or she is alive. The applicant is having no criminal antecedent and there is no evidence to show that applicant has hatched a conspiracy to commit the alleged offence, therefore, he may be released on bail.

In reply of the above contention it is submitted by Sri G. S. Hazela, learned Counsel for the C.B.I. that in the present case Dr. Kavita Rani who was a lecturer of Meerut University, Meerut has been abducted and killed in a pre-planned manner. The deceased has been killed only to use up the money of Rs. 35 lacs which was taken from Dr. Mirajuddin Ahmad by way of black mailing him to show a video film of his sexual intimacy with the deceased and that C.D. was handed over by the applicant to Dr. Mirajuddin Ahmad. It is further contended that every link of this case is very important. The applicant is linked with the commission of the alleged offence. The bail application of co-accused Yoges alias Yogendra has been rejected by this Court on 9.7.2007 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10307 of 2007. The gravity of the offence is too much. In case the applicant is released on bail he shall tamper with the evidence, therefore, he may not be released on bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submission made by learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A., learned Counsel for the C.B.I. and considering the fact that applicant has handed over the C.D. having video film of sexual intimacy of the deceased with Dr. Mirajuddin Ahmad. It is a very important matter showing the involvement of the applicant. If any accused complete any link of circumstance in completing the chain of circumstances, is not entitled for bail.

However, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail, therefore, the prayer for bail is refused.

Accordingly, this application is rejected.