IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 20th May, 2024
%
+
BAIL APPLN. 2791/2023
RAJU
….. Applicant
versus
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
….. Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Applicant
For the Respondent
: Mr. M. K. Khanna & and Mr. Arun,
Advocates.
: Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC for the State
with Mr. Kshitiz Garg, Mr. Ashvini
Kumar, Mr. Deepankar Wadhwa and
Mr. Anshul Saroha, Advocates along
with SI Rajesh Chauhan, P.S. Jaitpur.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
JUDGMENT
1.

The present application is filed under Section 439 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) for grant of regular
bail in FIR No. 253/2022 dated 27.04.2022, for offences under
Sections 365/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’),
registered at Police Station Jait Pur. Chargesheet is filed against
the applicant for the offences under Sections 365/364A/323/34 of
the IPC.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARMINDER KAUR
Signing Date:21.05.2024
15:58:11
2.

The present FIR was registered on a complaint given by
BAIL APPLN. 2791/2023
Page 1 of 6
the mother of the victim. It is alleged that the victim was sitting
at his bakery shop on 27.04.2022, when, around 8 PM, the
applicant along with his friends abducted the victim and took him
to an unknown place.
3.

It is the prosecution’s case that during the course of the
investigation, several phone calls were received on the
complainant’s phone from the victim’s phone. It is alleged that
the applicant and his accomplices made a demand of ₹50,000/on the calls. It is further alleged that the victim could be heard
crying for help on the calls. It is alleged that the victim was
traced with the help of technical surveillance and was found
injured in the captivity of the applicant and the other co-accused
persons.
4.

It is alleged that the accused persons tried to flee away,
however, the applicant and two others were nabbed by the police
on the spot.
5.

It is also alleged that the car used to abduct the victim was
seized at the instance of the accused persons. The bamboo sticks
used by the accused persons were also recovered from the said
car.
6.

The applicant, along with two other accused persons, was
arrested on 27.04.2022 itself.
7.

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the
applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He
submitted that the instant matter is not a case of abduction or an
offence committed for ransom.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARMINDER KAUR
Signing Date:21.05.2024
15:58:11
8.

Without prejudice, he submitted that the present case, at
BAIL APPLN. 2791/2023
Page 2 of 6
best, is one where the applicant solely meant to take revenge
from the victim’s brother for brutally thrashing and assaulting his
mother. He submitted that FIR No.252/2022 was registered at PS
Jait Pur regarding the said incident on the same day as the present
FIR.
9.

He submitted that the charge for the offence under Section
364A of the IPC has been framed against the applicant on the
basis of the alleged call recording of the applicant asking for
ransom from the complainant, however, the transcript filed by the
Investigating Officer suggests that the demand was made by the
victim himself and not the applicant.
10.

He submitted that the chargesheet is filed in the present
case and no purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in
custody.
11.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
opposed the grant of any relief to the applicant. He submitted that
the offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant is
heinous in nature.
12.

He further submitted that the victim is yet to be examined
in the present case, and if the applicant is enlarged on bail, there
is a possibility that he may try to influence or threaten the victim
and his family members.
13.

He submitted that the victim in his statement under Section
164 of the CrPC has supported the case of the prosecution.
ANALYSIS
14.

It is relevant to note that the charge for the offence under
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARMINDER KAUR
Signing Date:21.05.2024
15:58:11
BAIL APPLN. 2791/2023
Page 3 of 6
Section 364A of the IPC has been framed against the applicant in
the present case, which has not been challenged by the applicant.
The offence under Section 364A of the IPC is punishable with
death or imprisonment for life.
15.

The contention of the applicant that the victim was
abducted for revenge rather than ransom, at this stage, is not
beneficial to the applicant as the offence of abduction, even
without demand of ransom, is also grave in nature.
16.

Specific allegations have been made in regard to the
abduction and demand of ransom. The statements of the public
witnesses, under Section 161 of the CrPC, categorically point out
that the victim was in fact abducted. The allegations made
against the applicant, at this stage, do not point out towards the
false implication of the applicant.
17.

It is also relevant to note that the victim has supported the
case of the prosecution and specifically named the applicant in
his statement under Section 164 of the CrPC. The evidence of the
victim, corroborated by the statement of the public witnesses
under Section 161 of the CrPC, has great evidentiary value.
Prima facie, the involvement of the applicant, in such
circumstances, cannot be ruled out at this stage.
18.

The complaint was made to the Police by the mother of the
victim immediately on the victim being allegedly abducted. The
Police had then put the mobile phone of the victim on
surveillance and the calls made to the family members of the
victim were also recorded.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARMINDER KAUR
Signing Date:21.05.2024
15:58:11
19.

The transcript of the recording has also been placed on
BAIL APPLN. 2791/2023
Page 4 of 6
record. Prima facie, the same shows that the ransom was
demanded. The victim, in his statement under Section 164 of the
CrPC, had stated that the accused persons had threatened him
that if the demanded money was not arranged, he would be
beaten in the manner as shown to him in a video.
20.

While the allegations and defences in this regard are a
matter of trial, however, this Court cannot lose sight of the vital
fact that the applicant was caught red handed by the police
officials after the phone of the victim was put on surveillance.
21.

It is also pointed out that the victim is yet to be examined,
and in such circumstances, the possibility of the applicant
influencing the trial or threatening the victim cannot be ruled out.
22.

It is true that delay in trial is one of the factors that have to
be considered, however, the same alone cannot be a reason to
enlarge an accused person on bail [Ref. State of Kerala v.
Raneef: 2011(1) SCC 784].
23.

Therefore, considering the facts of the present case, the
gravity of the offence and that the victim is yet to be examined,
this Court feels that it is not a fit case for exercise of discretion
under Section 439 of CrPC.
24.

The application is, therefore, dismissed.

25.

It is, however, made clear that any observations made in
the present order are only for the purpose of deciding the present
bail application, and should not be treated as an opinion on the
merits of the case and also should not influence the outcome of
the trial.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARMINDER KAUR
Signing Date:21.05.2024
15:58:11
26.

The applicant is given liberty to file the application afresh
BAIL APPLN. 2791/2023
Page 5 of 6
after the prime witnesses are examined.
27.

The applicant is in custody for almost 2 years, therefore,
the learned Trial Court is directed to record evidence of the prime
witnesses expeditiously.

AMIT MAHAJAN, J
MAY 20, 2024
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARMINDER KAUR
Signing Date:21.05.2024
15:58:11
BAIL APPLN. 2791/2023
Page 6 of 6