Ankur Singh v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.199/2010, under Sections 364-A IPC, registered at Police Station Kashmiri Gate, North Delhi.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that main public witnesses i.e. complainant, victim and employees of the complainant have already been examined before the trial court and according to the deposition of the prosecution witnesses no active role in kidnapping or abducting or any kind of threatening to the victim has been attributed to the petitioner. It is also alleged that the petitioner was arrested in this case on 8th September, 2009 on the basis of the disclosure statement of Mr.Gaurav Chauhan. The petitioner.is Bail Application No. 40212015 2015:DHC:10662 resident of Meerut. An amount of Rs.1,37,50,000I- was recovered from the house of Gaurav Chauhan and two country made pistols along with 5 live cartridges were also recovered from his factory at his instance. The justification is also given on behalf of the petitioner for refusing to participate in TIP because he did not want to participate in TIP as complainant had already seen him.

3. With regard to answer to the prosecution that out of the amount received by him, he has purchased the car for a sum of Rs.90,000I-. The statement of PW-28 is referred by the counsel. Counsel states that he is already in custody for the last more than five years and there are different versions in the prosecution case. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for bail.

4. On completion of investigation, charge sheet of above mention case was submitted against accused in the court and now the case is pending trial.

5. The prosecution has arrayed 54 witnesses in the matter out of which 38 witnesses have already been examined. The matter is listed for remaining evidence. As far as reference of PW-28 is concerned, the said witness is the real brother of the petitioner who deposed before the Court that the petitioner has nothing to do with the car.

6. When the charge was framed, the trial court has referred the case of the prosecution which reads as under: "2. Case of the prosecution is that on 28.7.09 at about

12.25 a.m. in the night a complaint was lodged by Rajiv Mittal to the effect that in the evening of 27.7.09 at about

7.30 p.m. his son Nikunj Mittal had gone to the Gandhi Ground Parking Area to get his car who was asked by him to wait near the Presentation Convent School but thereafter he was missing; that there was no response from his mobile; that he went looking for him and found his Honda Car parked at GPO, Kashmere Gate at about

10.30 p.m. and his son was missing; that at about 10.52 p.m. somebody called him using the mobile phone of his son Nikunj and ransom call of Rs.[2] crores was made with further threat not to report the matter to the police.

3. The case of the prosecution is that mobile no. of abducted boy Nikunj no.9810009996 besides the mobile of Rajiv Mittal no.98100039355 were put on surveillance; that it was found that the calls were coming from mobile nos.9873091642 and 9873085834 by using mobile set of the abducted boy. The ransom amount was paid on 29.7.09 at 2 a.m. near Village Panchli, Bagpat Road, Meerut and the kidnapped boy was dropped later in the night near Taj Hotel, Dhaula Kuan. During investigation, the police zeroed in on the accused Gaurav Chauhan on the basis of his mobiles which were recharged from Max Communication from Main Sagarpur, Delhi. It came out on interrogation of accused Gaurav Chauhan that he was using two other mobile phones bearing No.9999697674 and 9818994557. Analysis of the locations of the Cell Ids during the relevant time revealed involvement of the accused. Suffice to state that at his behest, a part of the 4 ransom amount amounting to Rs.1,37,50,000/- were recovered from his house out of which 96 wads of currency notes were having slips of Vijay Bank. Incidentally as per the prosecution case Sh. Rajiv Mittal, the complainant had withdrawn a sum of Rs.1,25,00,000/from his bank i.e. Vijaya Bank to pay the ransom amount.

4. Further at the behest of the accused and pursuant to his disclosure statement dt. 9.8.09, one Desi Katta, one Desi Pistol with five live cartridges were recovered and accused Sahi Ram who had been revealed to have been an accessory in the crime was also arrested ultimately leading to the recovery of Rs.90,000I- out of which five wads of 100 notes of Rs.5001- in denomination were bearing the slips of Vijaya Bank. Both led the police to a flat in Bakkarwala, Delhi were the kidnapped boy was kept in their captivity. As per the disclosure statement of the accused Gaurav, Accused Ankur Singh was also involved in the entire conspiracy, kidnapping, demand of ransom and collection of ransom amount. He was also arrested as per disclosure statement of accused Gaurav. He was paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and accused Ankur Singh on interrogation revealed that he had purchased an Esteem car for Rs.90,000/- and rest of the money had been used by him. Suffice to state that the mobile numbers of accused Ankur Singh no.9557405210 and 9876001115 were checked and on analysis of the call records and location Ids, their involvement in the entire episode were brought to the fore. The three accused persons also refused to participate in the test identification parade on various grounds."

7. The statement of Rajev Mittal PW-/star witness was recorded on 6th August, 2010 and 7th August, 2010 and 1 1th August, 2010 who narrated the incident in detail and against the petitioner, he deposed in chief. The relevant part is reproduced as under: "As I was driving I asked for clarification whether it was Paanchli or Paanchali and I was told that it was Teen, Chaar wala Paanch. I was told that when iwould take right there would be quite an isolated place and stretch of road but after 4/5 Icilometers I would see some habitats that would be Village Paanchli and I could even ask someone about the name of the village. As I reached a populated area after a long stretch of desolated road, I confirmed from, one passerby that I had leached village Paanchli. As Iwas waiting I received a call and I confirmed that I was at Viliage Paanchli. I was told to take road near the drum and then the caller who was in regular touch with me instructed me to drive back home and I was assured that my son would be released as promised. I started my Car and put the headlights on. As I was just about to start I saw that a boy came through the agricultural field and picked up the polythene bags containing the ransom amount and started walking back towards the agricultural field. As the headlights were on I was able to have a look on the said boy and I can identify him. The witness stated that the said boy was accused Ankur present in the court today and the accused is correctly identified as the one who had picked the polythene bags containing the ransom amount. Further examined is deferred as it is lunch time and the examination to resume after lunch. PW-1: Statement of Sh.Rajeev Mittal, aged 47 years, son of Late Sh.Sh yam Lai Mittal, resident of 3C, Raj Narayan Marq, Civil Lines, Delhi-54. Resumed after lunch. On SA: After placing the polythene bags on the road, I had come back to the Car and I called my wife to apprise her that ransom had been delivered at the place told by the kidnappers and I started my Car and then I saw the accused Ankur taking away the polythene bags. I had no prior acquaintance with accused Ankur and it is during the investigation that I was asked by the 10 whether I would be able to identify the boy who had taken away the ransom amount in polythene bags and I answered in the affirmative. I was told that I would be called for the T.I.P. of the accused and after few days I was told by the 10 that T.I.P. was not to be held since the accused Ankur had refused to participate in the same." a U-turn and drive back towards Choraha at Meerut Bye- Pass. I was instructed that ishould roll down all the windows of the doors of the Car, keep the cabin light open, use the four dipper lights on the front, back and rear and drive slowly almost at zero speed without the headlights back towards the Choraha. I followed the instructions and started driving back towards the Choraha. The kidnapper was in regular touch with me and asking about my location. As Ireached the Choraha Meerut Bye-Pass, I was again asked to take a U-turn and drive again towards Village Paanchli. This was repeated about 5/6 times I drove to Paanchli and then back to Choraha and so on. Then I was instructed that as soon as I clear a kachcha rasta while driving from Village Paanchli towards Choraha Meerut Bye-Pass, I would see a drum on my left and I was told to stop the Car near the drum, take out the polythene bags containing the ransom amount, come out of the Car and place the polythene bags containing the ransom amount on the road near the drum. I asked the caller about the fate of my son and when he would be released and the caller told me that as soon as the ransom amount is paid, my son would be dropped in front of my house within an hour or so. I reached the spot that was instructed about but I asked them that how could I leave the polythene bags containing the ransom amount in an open area and what is the guarantee that the amount would reach him. I was apprehensive that after dropping the amount if the same is not received by the caller then they would again play mischief. The caller told me that I should look on my left and across the agricultural fields I would see a boundary wall and his associates were already there and I would see them waiving on my direction with a mobile in their hand which would be emanating light. Sitting in the Car, when I looked on my left I saw exactly as I was [Old by the caller. This place was near Vidhya Knowledge Park. I came out of the Car and as instructed placed the two polythene bags containing the ransom amount on the

8. The charge against the petitioner as per prosecution case is serious in nature. This Court does not want to express any opinion but at the same time the Court is conscious about the seriousness of an offence. The petitioner was also involved in earlier criminal matter in which he has now been acquitted.

9. At this stage, I am not inclined to grant the bail, however, he may be entitled for interim protection of bail as earlier granted to him many time. It is also a matter of fact that he is in judicial custody for the last more than five years. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the remaining evidence be completed by the trial Court within a period of four months and thereafter final judgment be delivered within six months from today. With these directions, the present petition is disposed of. In case the matter is not decided within the period mentioned above he would be at liberty to file the fresh application for bail before trial court.

10. The petition is disposed of accordingly.