Pramod Kumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J—This application has been filed seeking the release of the applicant on bail-in Case Crime No. 393/2014 under section 364-A IPC and 12/14 D.A.A. Act, Police Station-Kotwali Karvi, District-Chitrakoot.

Counter-affidavit filed by learned A.G.A., today in the Court, is taken on record.

Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.

Perused the record.

Submission of Counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is not involved in the act of kidnapping and has not received the ransom amount. Further submission is that the persons who kidnapped the abductee had muffled up their faces, and therefore, it should be presumed that they were perhaps known persons to the abductee and that is why they concealed their identity. Contention is that as the applicant belongs to a distant place, therefore, it should be presumed that he is not one of those persons who have committed the crime.

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and has drawn the attention of the Court to the statement of abductee Bhaiya Lal, who has given statement that the two persons who had kidnapped him were Kamal Kant and Pramod, and after kidnapping him, he was kept in a distant lonely place and thereafter they started asking for ransom amount in lieu of releasing him. It was further stated by the abductee that Rs. 60,000/- were ultimately negotiated to be paid for releasing him but thereafter the police intercepted and raided the place where the abductee was kept in confinement. Counsel has also drawn the attention of the Court to the recovery memo, in which it was stated that the abductee was recovered along with the applicant-accused and the applicant was arrested on spot. Further submission is that kidnapping a person to quench the rapacious greed of money is an abhorrent crime and the people who indulged in committing such egregious offences are the scum of the earth and there is nothing on record to indicate the false implication of the applicant. Further it is submitted that concealment of identity is resorted to not only by known persons but by unknown persons also so that they may in future save themselves from being identified by the witnesses and the concealment of identity should not be taken as a conclusive circumstance to absolve the applicant from the offences in which he is indulged or to hold that he did not participate in the crime. Lastly it has been submitted that even the period of detention is not so drawn out which in a given case may be the basis to release an accused on bail.

Looking to the nature of offence, its gravity and the evidence in support of it and the overall circumstances of this case, this Court does not feel inclined to grant bail to the applicant. Therefore, the prayer for bail of the applicant is rejected. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.