Ravindra vs State of U.P. and Another

Shiv Shanker, J.—This first bail application has been moved on behalf of applicant Ravindra involved in Case Crime No. R.C. No. 1(S)/2007, S.T. No. 428 of 2007, under Sections 120B, 364, 384, 302, 201 I.P.C., Police Station-SCV/SCR-II, New Delhi.

Prosecution case in brief is that the F.I.R. was lodged by Satish Kumar, brother of deceased Dr. Kavita Rani on 29.10.06 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 19.10.06 to attend Diwali festival. On 23.10.06 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 29.10.06. Thereafter, the police of P. S. Syana made search of the room of the deceased in Indira Gandhi Mahila Chhatrawas, Meerut on 1.11.06 and some letters written by the deceased were taken in possession, in which the names of co-accused Ravindra Pradhan and his brother Harendra Pradhan were 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 22.12.06. 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 further 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 blackmailed 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 20.12.06 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. Co-accused Ravindra Pradhan gave confessional statement, wherein the name of present applicant has also been introduced. Therefore, in furtherance of that conspiracy, Dr. Kavita Rani was abducted and killed. The case is based on circumstantial evidence.

Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and Sri G. S. Hazela, learned Counsel for the C.B.I.

Learned Counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. No evidence has been collected by the Investigating Officer against the present applicant. Only evidence against the present applicant is that confessional statement of co-accused Ravindra Pradhan, who is main accused in this case who disclosed the name of present applicant. The confessional statement of co-accused Ravindra Pradhan has no value regarding applicant. Therefore, it cannot be deemed evidence against the present applicant. Other evidence has also been collected by the Investigating Officer by recording the statement of Santosh who was juice vendor. He has also not named the present applicant in his statement and the applicant was not put for identification from these witnesses. Therefore, it is not liable to be deemed that he was involved in purchasing juice from the said shop and after mixing poison, the same was administered to Dr. Kavita Rani. Later on, she was taken in the vehicle at the area of Dadari where she was killed by the accused Ravindra Pradhan and Sultan Singh and her dead body was thrown in canal.

On the other hand, Sri Hazela learned Counsel for C.B.I. has submitted that the applicant was driver of the main accused Ravindra Pradhan and he used to work at the direction of him. It is further contended that the present applicant had mixed poisons just double in the juice of Dr. Kavita Rani deceased. It is further contended that bail of co-accused Yogesh alias Yogendra and Ashok Kumar had already been rejected by this Court. Gravity of 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.

Dr. Kavita Rani was lecturer in Chaudhary Charan Singh University Meerut, who has been abducted and killed in pre-planned manner. The deceased has been killed only to usurp the money of Rs. 35 lacs which was taken from Dr. Mirajuddin Ahmad by way of blackmailing him to show a video film of his sexual intimacy with the deceased and that C.D. was handed over by co-accused Ashok Kumar to Dr. Mirajuddin Ahmad. However, the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. He was also not involved in the C.D. of sexual intimacy with the deceased of Dr. Mirajuddin Ahmad. The said C.D. was not handed over by the present applicant to Dr. Mirajuddin Ahmad. It was handed over by co-accused Ashok Kumar to Dr. Mirajuddin Ahmad. There is no other evidence against the present applicant that he was also involved in taking money of Rs. 35 lacs from Dr. Mirajuddin Ahmad. Therefore, he could not be beneficiary regarding such amount.

Evidence against the present applicant has only been collected that co-accused Ravindra Pradhan has disclosed the name of present applicant. Confession of co-accused cannot be considered against the present applicant. Another evidence has been collected by the Investigating Officer by recording the statement of seller of juice. Its copy is available on record in supplementary-affidavit at page 12.

Seller of juice Santosh, son of Sri Jagdish, resident of Panchsheel house of Tuta, P. S. Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad who has stated that he lived at the above address with his father at the rented house and shop of juice is situated in the complex of jamaita in the way of Bank and he and his father both sold juice at thela in front of shop of Bharat Chemist. About two months ago, two men and one woman had come in car. One man came out from car and demanded three glass juice. One man took one glass juice in the car himself and rest of two glasses were taken by him. The above statement of Santosh reveals that none has been named in the statement, meaning thereby, the present applicant has also not been named by this witness. The applicant was also not put for identification test parade. No other evidence has been collected by the Investigating Officer against the present applicant. The case of present applicant is distinguishable with above other co-accused persons whose bail applications have already been rejected. In such circumstances, there is no force in the submissions made by learned A.G.A. and learned Counsel for C.B.I.

After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties, the bail application of the present applicant is hereby allowed.

Let the applicant named above in the above noted case be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with heavy amount with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned as subject to the following conditions :

The applicant shall not tamper with prosecution evidence by intimidating first informant and other witnesses.

He shall cooperate with investigation and speedy trial.

He shall not indulge in criminal activities or commission of any offence after being released on bail and he shall appear at the concerned police station in the first week of every two months.