Karan Singh vs State of U.P.

Vijay Kumar Verma, J.—This bail application in crime no. 849 of 2007 under sections 364, 120B IPC of P.S. Ujhaini, District Budaun has been moved on behalf of the accusedapplicant Karan Singh.

2.Rahul aged about six years, grandson of the complainant Raghuveer Prasad s/o Dal Chand, resident of village Januiya (Butal Daulat), P.S. Ujhaini, District Budaun disappeared on 17.06.2007 while he was playing with other children. A missing report (gumshudgi) about the disappearance of Rahul was lodged by his grandfather Raghuveer Prasad at P.S. Ujhaini on 18.06.2007, which was lodged in G.D. No. 34 at about 4.00 p.m. Subsequently, on the same day the case was converted and registered under section 364 IPC against unknown persons at crime no. 849 of 2007. The allegation against the applicant Karan Singh is that he along with his companions kidnapped Rahul and after his arrest, on his pointing out, wearing clothes of Rahul were recovered.

3.I have heard Sri Onkar Nath, Advocate appearing for the applicant, learned A GA for the State at length and perused the entire material on record carefully.

4.The main submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant in support of the bail application was that the applicant is not named in the FIR and no allegation was made against him in the earlier statement of complainant about kidnapping Rahul, but subsequently, due to enmity of litigation, he has been falsely implicated in this case by showing false recovery of wearing clothes of Rahul on his pointing out.

5.It was further submitted by the counsel for the applicant that recovery of wearing clothes of the kidnapped child is said to have been made after a gap of more than six months and during this long gap, the colour of the clothes might have become fade and it was not possible for the father and the grandfather of kidnapped child to identify the clothes.

6.It was also submitted by the learned counsel that allegation of demand of ransom from the complainant was made against some other persons, who have been granted bail by the lower court, whereas the applicant did not make any demand of ransom from the complainant or any other person.

7.Next submission made by the learned counsel was that there is no criminal history of the applicant and when the kidnapped child Rahul could not be traced out, then due to previous enmity of litigation, the applicant has been falsely roped in this case. It was also submitted in this context that Sasural of the applicant is in the village of complainant and litigation of land is going on between the inlaws of the applicant and complainant and due to the enmity of that litigation, false case has been concocted against the applicant.

8.Lastly it was submitted by learned counsel that the applicant is in jail since 21.01.2008 and hence, on the basis of long incarceration in jail, the applicant deserves bail now, because due to delay in trial, his fundamental right of speedy trial envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution is being violated.

9.The learned AGA on the other hand opposed the bail application and contended that the applicant along with his companions with conspiracy of other coaccused kidnapped the grandson of the complainant and after arrest of the applicant, on his pointing out wearing clothes of the kidnapped child were recovered by the police in presence of grandfather and father of the child on 01.02.2008 and hence, in this heinous crime of kidnapping for ransom, the applicant does not deserve bail, because the kidnapped child Rahul has not yet been recovered.

10.Having given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by the parties'' counsel and after carefully going through the entire material on record, in my opinion, the applicant does not deserve bail in this heinous crime, because after arrest of the applicant, on his pointing out wearing clothes of the kidnapped child Rahul are said to have been recovered on 01.02.2008. The father and grandfather of Rahul were present at the time of recovery of wearing clothes of Rahul on the pointing out of the applicant. In the missing report, it is stated by the complainant that his grandson Rahul was wearing Baniyan of Aasmani colour having collars, kaccha of red colour and nekar(half pant) of sileti colour. Copy of recovery memo of wearing clothes of the kidnapped child on the pointing out of the applicant Karan Singh has been filed with supplementary affidavit dated 08.04.2009. From perusal of this memo, it is revealed that same clothes were recovered on the pointing out of the applicant Karan Singh, which are mentioned in the missing report. In his first statement also, the complainant Raghuveer Prasad has mentioned the clothes, which his grandson Rahul was wearing at the time of disappearance. Annexure (IV) to the bail application is the copy of that statement, which was recorded much earlier to the recovery of the clothes on the pointing out of the applicant. The clothes, which have been shown to have been recovered on the pointing out of the applicant are the same clothes which find place in aforesaid statement of Raghuveer Prasad. From subsequent statement (Annexure6) of the complainant Raghuveer Prasad, this fact is borne out that rupees seven lac were demanded as ransom by Urmila and Gore Lal etc., who had disclosed that the kidnapped Rahul is in the custody of Karan Singh and Hakim Singh etc. From this statement of the complainant, this fact is also borne out that the complainant had agreed to pay rupees four lac as ransom, but payment was not made, because his grandson Rahul was not shown to him. The coaccused, who had demanded ransom from the complainant had stated that kidnapped child will be returned after having talk with Karan Singh and Hakim Singh etc. Therefore, having regard to all these facts and keeping in view the evidence available against the applicant, without expressing any opinion on merit, the applicant can not be admitted to bail.

11.Although the coaccused Dhara Singh @ Sadhu Singh, Udai Singh, Yuvraj, Smt. Kamla Sharma, Urmila and Nem Singh and Harprasad have been granted bail by the lower court, as is evident from the copy of bail orders (Annexure (7), Annexure (8), Annexure (9) and Annexure (10), but on the basis of these bail orders, applicant Karan Singh, on whose pointing out the wearing clothes of the kidnapped Rahul were recovered, can not be granted bail, as there is no parity in the role of applicant and other coaccused, to whom bail has been granted by the lower court.

12.In my considered opinion, on the basis of long period of detention in jail also, the applicant can not be admitted to bail in this heinous crime of kidnapping for ransom. In this context, reference may be made to the case of Pramod Kumar Saxena vs. Union of India and others 2008 (63) ACC 115, in which the Hon''ble Apex Court has held that mere long period of incarceration in jail would not be perse illegal. If the accused has committed offence, he has to remain behind bars. Such detention in jail even as an under trial prisoner would not be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.

13.For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the bail application of the applicant Karan Singh is hereby rejected.

14.The trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant within a period of six months by making sincere efforts and avoiding unnecessary adjournments.

15.Office is directed to send a copy of this order within a week to the trial court concerned for necessary action.