Shubham v. State of Uttarakhand

Heard t he learned counsels for t he part ies.

3. On 31.05.2024, Naresh Kum ar, t he husband of t he inform ant , Poonam , left his house for work and lat er, around 8: 00 PM, a call was m ade from his m obile num ber t o t he inform ant , wherein t he caller dem anded a ransom of ₹5,00,000 for his release. Upon her refusal, the amount was reduced to ₹3,00,000 and subsequent ly to ₹30,000. The informant, unable to arrange the am ount , report ed t he m at t er t o t he police. The vict im was event ually released wit hout t he paym ent of ransom . During t he invest igat ion, CCTV foot age purport edly 2 showed t he accused near t he crim e scene, and t he accused were arrest ed based on t he st at em ent s of t he vict im and t he confessional st at em ent of co- accused Ram kum ar. The vict im ’s m edical report recorded inj uries allegedly sust ained during his capt ivit y.

4. The applicant s assert t hat t hey have been falsely im plicat ed t he present case and are not involved in t he alleged offence. I t is cont ended t hat t he FI R was lodged aft er considerable delay wit hout any plausible explanat ion, t hereby raising doubt s about it s credibilit y. The applicant s subm it t hat t he ent ire case is a result of previous financial disput es bet ween t he vict im and co- accused Ram kum ar, which t o a m inor alt ercat ion on t he int ervening night of 30/ 31.05.2024. I t is argued t hat t he com plainant , in an at t em pt t o avoid repaym ent of debt s, has exaggerat ed t he fact s and given t he incident a false colour of kidnapping for ransom .

5. The applicant s furt her cont end t hat t hey were neit her present at t he alleged crim e scene nor involved in any conspiracy t o abduct t he vict im . The prosecut ion has failed t o provide any concret e evidence, such as call det ail records or independent wit nesses, t o corroborat e it s allegat ions. I t is subm it t ed t hat t he CCTV foot age relied upon by t he prosecut ion does not conclusively est ablish t heir involvem ent . Moreover, t he applicant s st at e t hat t heir arrest is prim arily based on t he alleged confessional st at em ent of co- accused Ram kum ar, which is inadm issible in law and cannot be used as subst ant ive evidence against t hem .

6. Addit ionally, t he applicant s m aint ain t hat no recovery has been m ade from t hem t hat links t hem t o 3 t he crim e. They have no prior crim inal ant ecedent s and have been in j udicial cust ody since 03.12.2024. Their prolonged incarcerat ion is causing undue hardship t o t heir fam ilies. The bail applicat ion filed before t he Sessions Court was rej ect ed on 20.12.2024, and t hey now seek relief from t his Hon'ble Court on t he grounds t hat t he evidence on record does not est ablish a prim a facie case against t hem .

7. The learned AGA, opposing t he bail applicat ion, argues t hat t he charges against t he applicant s are grave, involving an offence under Sect ion 364- A I PC, which carries severe punishm ent . The prosecut ion relies on t he st at em ent of t he com plainant , Poonam , who st at ed t hat she received m ult iple ransom calls from t he vict im 's m obile phone, and t he voice on t he call m at ched t hat of one of t he accused. The vict im , Naresh Kum ar, in his st at em ent under Sect ion 161 Cr.P.C., ident ified t he applicant s as am ong t he persons who confined him in a room and assault ed him during his capt ivit y.

8. Furt her, wit ness Sham bhu Kum ar, t he son of t he vict im , st at ed in his st at em ent t hat he assist ed t he inform ant in t rying t o locat e t he vict im and saw t he accused near t he localit y around t he t im e of t he crim e. The prosecut ion also relies on t he CCTV foot age, which purport edly capt ures t he applicant s in t he vicinit y of t he crim e scene at t he relevant t im e.

9. The m edical report of t he vict im corroborat es his allegat ions, as it records m ult iple inj uries, including blunt force t raum a, which is consist ent wit h physical assault during capt ivit y. Moreover, t he prosecut ion assert s t hat t he police recovered call records indicat ing 4 frequent com m unicat ion bet ween t he accused before and aft er t he alleged offence, st rengt hening t he case against t hem .

10. However, upon careful scrut iny of t he evidence on record, t his Court t hat t here exist several inconsist encies and gaps in t he prosecut ion's case. The delay in lodging t he FI R rem ains unexplained, which cast s doubt on t he veracit y of t he allegat ions. Furt herm ore, t he prosecut ion prim arily relies on circum st ant ial evidence wit hout providing direct proof of t he applicant s' involvem ent in t he alleged offence.

11. The CCTV foot age does not conclusively est ablish t he applicant s' presence at t he scene of t he crim e, and t he confessional st at em ent of co- accused Ram kum ar, which form s a significant basis for t heir arrest , is inadm issible in law unless corroborat ed by independent evidence. No such corroborat ive m at erial has been present ed.

12. Addit ionally, t here has been no recovery of ransom m oney or any ot her incrim inat ing m at erial linking t he applicant s t o t he offence. The m edical report , t hough indicat ive of physical assault , does not specifically at t ribut e t he inj uries t o t he applicant s. The alleged ransom dem and was m ade from t he vict im 's m obile phone, but no forensic verificat ion has been conduct ed t o est ablish t hat t he applicant s m ade t he calls.

13. Given t hese fact ors, along wit h t he applicant s' clean ant ecedent s and prolonged incarcerat ion, t his Court finds t hat t he applicant s have m ade out a prim a facie case for t he grant of bail. The fundam ent al principle t hat 'bail t he rule and j ail t he except ion' applies, especially since t he t rial has not yet com m enced and unnecessary pre- t rial det ent ion m ust be avoided. 5

14. I n view of t he considerat ions m ent ioned above, t his Court finds t hat t he applicant s are ent it led t o t he benefit of bail. Consequent ly, t he bail applicat ions of t he applicant s are allowed, and is direct ed t hat t he applicant s, Shubham , son of Ram kum ar, and Rinku, son of Naresh, be released on bail, on furnishing t heir personal bonds and t wo reliable suret ies, each of t he like am ount , t o t he sat isfact ion of t he Magist rat e concerned. (Ashish Naithani, J.) 24.02.2025