Shahnawaj vs State of U.P.

Ravindra Singh, J.—This application has been filed by the applicant Shahnawaj with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 645 of 2006 u/s 364A, 302, 201, 34, 420, 467 and 468, I.P.C., P.S. Kalpi district Jalaun.

The prosecution story in brief is that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Abdul Hasin on 29.6.2006 at about 7.10 p.m. alleging therein that the deceased Shariq alias Rana was missing since 11.00 a.m. on 20.6.2006, search was made by the first informant and his family members but no whereabouts of the deceased could be known. During investigation the I.O. came to the conclusion that on 5.7.2006 the deceased has been kidnapped, therefore, the case was converted u/s 364, I.P.C. On 8.7.2006 it was informed by the first informant that he had received an information on his mobile phone in which the demand of ransom has been made. Therefore, the offence was converted u/s 364A, I.P.C. it was alleged that the deceased had received the above mentioned message on his Mobile No. 9415926473 sent by Mobile No. 9919353596. The statement of the first informant was recorded u/s 161, Code of Criminal Procedure who stated that the deceased is aged about 8 years and 6 months, was missing since 20.6.2006, after one week of his missing, he had received a message on mobile phone in which the demand of ransom was made. The statement of the witnesses Ajai Sachan and Bharat Singh was recorded by the I.O. The witness Ajai Sachan stated that the mobile phone set 9919353596 and its Sim No. 2821012809 has been purchased by Bharat Singh and his associates who had come on motor cycle No. U.P. 92 E 3810 but Bharat Singh stated that he had not purchased any such mobile. The applicant and co-accused Irfan and Zahid were apprehended by the police on 9.7.2006 at about 2.00 p.m. and at their pointing out the dead body of the deceased was recovered from a well and the mobile set was recovered from the applicant by which telephonic message of demand of ransom was given to the first informant on 26.6.2006.

Heard, Sri Alok Kumar Yadav, learned Counsel for the applicant and he learned A.G.A. or the State of U.P.

It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that in the present case the information of missing the deceased was given on 29.6.2006, which is delayed information. In this case, there is no reference that the first informant had received any information on 26.6.2006 in respect of the demand of ransom. There is no direct eye-witness account, the recovery of the dead body of the deceased was made by the I.O. but the same has been shown to be recovered at the pointing out of the applicant and two other co-accused. The recovery is not supported by any independent witness. There is no evidence to show the involvement of the applicant and the applicant is not having any criminal antecedent.

In reply of the above contentions it is submitted by the learned A.G.A. that the applicant has given information by his mobile to the first informant demanding the ransom amount and at the appointing out of the applicant and other co-accused the dead body of the deceased has been recovered from a well. The applicant is the main accused. He may not be released on bail.

Considering the facts, circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. and considering the gravity of the offence and the evidence collected by the I.O. and 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 the application is rejected.