Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1896 (ALL)

VIJAI PAL ALIAS VIJAI SINGH v. STATE OF U P

2005-09-27

RAVINDRA SINGH

body2005
RAVINDRA SINGH, J. Heard Sri P. C. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned standing Counsel. 2. This application has been filed by the applicant Vijay Pal alias Vijay Singh with the prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime No. 121 of 2005 under Section 364 A and 411 I. P. C. P. S. Hasanpur district J. P. Nagar. 3. From the perusal of the record it reveals that in the present case F. I. R. was lodged by one Om Prakash at P. S. Hasanpur on 12-2-2005 at 1. 10 a. m. , in respect of the incident which had occurred on 12-2-2005 at 9. 30 a. m. in the jungle of village Raja Nagal in which one boy namely Rinkoo aged about 11 years was kidnapped. 4. According to the prosecution version one Rinku aged about 11 years, a student of Class III was going to his school of village Bhadaura at about 9. 30 a. m. When he reached near the field of one Lalloo Prasad two unknown miscreants riding on a motor cycle came there and by force lifted the boy and after putting him on the motor cycle run away. The other school going boys made hue and cry then some persons chased them but the miscreants could not be apprehended. That boy was recovered on 8-3- 2005 by the police. The recovery was made after three and half weeks. Thereafter he was handed over to her parents. The boy was under fear. His statement was recorded in which he disclosed the name of the applicant and others co-accused namely Satish, Satyapal, Ashok and Vinod. He categorically stated that he had identified them. He was kidnapped by them. The statement of Smt. Premwati, mother of the kidnapped boy was recorded. The applicant has surrendered on 15-4-2005. He was taken in police remand and on his pointing out Rs. 40,000/-amount of ransom was recovered it was paid to the applicant as a share and because there was demand of Rs. 3 lakhs. The boy was recovered after the transaction of the aforesaid amount as ransom. 5. The recovery of Rs. 40,000/-was made in the presence of the independent witnesses. 6. It is contended by the learned Counsel the applicant that the applicant is not named in the F. I. R. The alleged kidnapped boy has been recovered by the police. 3 lakhs. The boy was recovered after the transaction of the aforesaid amount as ransom. 5. The recovery of Rs. 40,000/-was made in the presence of the independent witnesses. 6. It is contended by the learned Counsel the applicant that the applicant is not named in the F. I. R. The alleged kidnapped boy has been recovered by the police. The recovery was not made from the possession of the applicant. The allegation of ransom was made by the first informant in his third statement recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr. P. C. He did not make any allegation in respect of ransom in his earlier two statements recorded by the Investigating Officer. It is further contended that the recovery of Rs. 40,000/-as shown by the prosecution as the amount of ransom is false because it is the amount of the applicant which has been taken from his house by the police. 7. It is further contended that in this case the involvement of one Balwant, real maternal uncle of the alleged kidnapped boy came in light and other co-accused Vinod, Satish Kumar, Ashok Kumar were arrested by the police and the Co-accused Harpal has been released on bail by this Court. 8. It is opposed by the learned A. G. A. by submitting that the name of the applicant was disclosed by the alleged kidnapped boy and after recovery of that boy the statement of the first informant was recorded in which he has clearly stated that the amount of Rs. 3 lacs was given to the applicant and others and thereafter the kidnapped boy was released. When the applicant was taken on the police remand on his pointing out a sum of Rs. 40,000/-was recovered by digging the earth from his garden in the presence of independent witnesses which shows that the applicant was actively involved in the present case and he has taken the amount of ransom. 9. It is further submitted that the applicant has criminal antecedent. He is involved in a case of Murder, Arms Act, N. D. P. S. Act and in case he is released on bail he will not permit the witness to give evidence in the Court and there is change of his absconding. The case of the applicant is indistinguishable with the case of the other co-accused persons so he is not entitled for bail. The case of the applicant is indistinguishable with the case of the other co-accused persons so he is not entitled for bail. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case and the submission made by the learned Counsel for the applicant without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case the applicant is not entitled for bail at this stage. Accordingly his bail application is rejected. Bail rejected. .