Rishi alias Shwetank Pratap Singh vs State of U.P.

Ravindra Singh, J.—Heard Sri P. S. Srivastava and Sri S. P. Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.

The facts in brief of this case are that on 27.1.2008 at 2.00 p.m. The alleged kidnapee Gaurav Kumar Mall alias Nikki son of Sri Krishna Mohan Mall, Advocate who was studying in B.A. II year have received few calls on his Mobile No. 9936048587 thereafter he apprised his grandmother and other inmates of his house that call has come from the applicant. He is calling for participation in a function, thereafter he proceeded to participate in that function, but he did not return back. His search was made by his father on 28.1.2008, the father of the kidnapee made a phone on his mobile, it was attended by some other person who said that his son is available, for his release arrange Rs. two lacs. Thereafter the F.I.R. has been lodged by Sri Krishna Mohan Mall on 29.1.2008 at 1.55 a.m. But the alleged kidnapee has been recovered by the police in a combing. The statement of the alleged kidnapee has been recorded who disclosed the name of the applicant, co-accused Sanjay, co-accused Nitish, co-accused Faiyaz and co-accused Zafar. During investigation the call details of the mobile phone of the applicant and the alleged kidnapee has also been collected by the Investigating Officer which shows that the alleged kidnapee was called by the applicant. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R., the alleged kidnapee has been recovered. But the recovery has not been made from the possession of the applicant. The applicant is friend of the alleged kidnapee and no demand of ransom has been made by the applicant, even no transaction of such amount has taken place. The naming of the applicant is afterthought. The applicant is having no criminal antecedent. He may be released on bail.

In reply of the above contention, it is submitted by learned A.G.A. that applicant is main person who called the kidnapee, thereafter he was kidnapee and taken to some other place, the demand of ransom has been made but the police has recovered the kidnaped in a combing and the name of the applicant has been disclosed by the kidnapee, there is no reason of the false implication. The call details of the mobile phone of the applicant shows that the kidnapee was called by him. It is very serious offence. The applicant may not be released on bail.

Considering the facts, circumstance of the case, submissions made by learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and from the perusal of the record it appears that in the present case the alleged kidnapee has been kidnapped by the applicant and other co-accused persons, the demand of ransom was made, the same has been connected with the call details of the mobile phone, the alleged kidnapee has narrated the whole prosecution story, there are some other witnesses also to support the prosecution story. There is evidence that the alleged kidnapee was handed over to some other criminals and there is no reason of the false implication of the applicant, the gravity of the offence is too much and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail, the prayer for bail is refused.

Accordingly this application is rejected.