Judgment · High Court

Through: Mr.Navin Sharnia, APP Respondent * + AND + BAIL APPLN. 1242/2012 MUKESH KUMAR Petitioner Through: Mr.Suraj Rathi, Advocate. versus STAIE Through: Mr.Navin Sharma, APP Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI % ORDER 04.09.2012 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Crl.M.A. No.14243/2012 (Exemption)

2. Exemptionallowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application stands dispose of. Bail Applns. No.575/2012 & 1242/2012

These two bail applications have been moved under Section 439 CrPC by the petitionersRaghubirand Mukesh Kumar seekingregularbail in the case FIR No.256/2010 under Section 363 IPC (Sections 364- A/302/201/120-B/34 IPC added later on), PS Vikas Puri. The matter is ( pending trial.

Taking into consideration the role attributed to the petitioners and that material witnesses are yet to be examined, the learned ASJ rejected the bail application of petitionerMukesh Kumar vide order dated 17.07.2012 and of petitioner Raghubir vide order dated 02.03.2012.

State has filed the detailed status report highlighting the role of the petitionersMukesh Kumar and Raghubir. As per the status report, these petitioners used to provide food to Nikesh. On 3.10.2010co-accusedHari Singh madetelephoniccall to father of Nikesh from mobileNo.8923174470 and demanded ransom of Rs.50 lacs, however father of Nikesh negotiated on the ransom amount. On 06.10.2010, all the accused persons assembled in the sugarcane field and at night at about 9.00 pm, Hari Singhagain made a call to father of Nikesh from the sugarcane field and Nilcesh was also made to speak to his father. Just after this call, the accused persons strangulatedNikeshwith the help of nylon rope and buried his dead-bodyin the field itself. Thereafter they all left fi-om there and accused Hri Singh kept on demanding ransom on behalf of the accused persons and the deal was struck for a sum of Rs.2.5 lacs and he asked father of Nikesh to come Bareilly with the ransom money. On 09.10.2010 Udai Naraiti - father of Nikesh along with his brother reached Bareilly Railway Station at about 4.00 pm. At Bareilly, Hari Singh asked Udai Narain Singh to board another train to Manpur Nagaria. However, Udai Narain Singh refused to go any further from Bareilly. Thereafter, Hari Singh contacted Dinesh and asked him to buy a new telephone connection and to reach Bareilly Railway Station with Usman @ Bunty and Bhanu Pratap @ Bablu who reached there at about

1.00 pm and after getting satisfied, they collected the ransom money of Rs.2.5 lacs from Udai Narain Singh. Accused Hari Singh confirmed to Udai Narain Singh on telephone that ransom money has been received and he also assured Uday Narain that his son would reach at platform No.6 in the morning. The ransom money was distributed amongst all the accused persons including the present petitioners and they received Rs.20,000/- each as their share from the ransom money which was spent by them. The pant of Nikesh was recovered at the instance of Mukesh which was identified r''A during judicial test identification parade.

3. On behalf of petitioners, it has been submitted that except disclosure statement of the co-accused, there is no material to connect petitioners with the offence. It has been further submitted that petitioners have not made any call for ransom nor collected the ransom amount, hence petitioners are entitled to release on bail pending trial.

Taking into consideration the heinous nature of the offence, the role attributed to the petitioners and that the case is at the initial stage and material prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined, I do not find it to be a fit case to enlarge the petitioners/applicants on bail. Prayer rejected.