Blog

Case Title: RAJU Versus THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Case No: BAIL APPLN. 2791/2023

Decided on: 20th May , 2024

Quorum: The Hon’ble JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

Facts of the case

The issue concerns an occurrence on April 27, 2022, when the victim was kidnapped from his bakery business by the applicant and his friends. The prosecution claims that when the victim was brought to an undisclosed place, the applicant and his associates sought a ransom of ₹50,000 over the phone. The accused tried to escape but were caught by the police after the victim was discovered to have hurt while in custody. The authorities confiscated the bamboo sticks and the automobile used in the kidnapping. On the same day as the incident, the applicant and two other accused parties were taken into custody.

Issues

1. What particular charges have been brought in this instance against the applicant?

2. How did the prosecution prove that the applicant and his cronies were involved in the kidnapping?

3. What aspects did the court take into account in deciding whether to give the petitioner bail?

Legal Provisions

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), Section 365/34, relates to kidnapping and abduction.Kidnapping for ransom is covered under Section 364A of the IPC, which carries a life sentence or death penalty. The IPC’s Section 323/34 addresses intentionally causing harm. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), Section 439, addresses the granting of bail to those who are accused. Section 161 of the CrPC pertains to the questioning of witnesses in the course of an investigation. The recording of statements made in front of a magistrate is covered by Section 164 of the CrPC.

Appellant Contentions

The applicant stated that the incident was not a case of kidnapping or a crime committed for ransom and claimed he was wrongfully accused in the case. The applicant’s acts, according to the defense attorney, were driven more by a desire for vengeance against the victim’s brother for abusing his mother than by a wish to hold the victim hostage. The defense contested the charges’ framing under Section 364A of the IPC, arguing that the victim, not the applicant, was the one who made the purported ransom demand.It was underlined that holding the applicant in detention was pointless because the charge sheet had already been submitted [T4].

Respondent Contentions

The State objected to the application receiving any relief, claiming that the applicant had committed a horrible crime. The State raised fears that the applicant could attempt to intimidate or exert influence over the victim and his family members if he was granted bail. It was emphasized that the victim had given a statement under Section 164 of the CrPC that bolstered the prosecution’s case. The State argued that the victim had not yet been seen in the case, suggesting that granting bail to the applicant may put them at danger of interference [T3].

Court Analysis and Judgement

 The court observed that the applicant had not contested the charge under Section 364A of the IPC, which carries a harsh punishment, and that the charge had been brought against the applicant [T3]. The court took into account the seriousness of the crime, ruling that it was still a serious felony [T3] even though the kidnapping was carried out as payback rather than as a ransom. Statements from the victim and public witnesses backed up specific claims of kidnapping and ransom demands, demonstrating the applicant’s involvement [T3]. Under Section 164 of the CrPC [T3], the court highlighted the victim’s endorsement of the prosecution’s case as well as the statement’s evidential importance. The tribunal5. The court emphasized that there was a solid case against the applicant because the applicant was apprehended by the police after being observed on the victim’s phone [T4]. Given that the victim had not yet undergone an examination, concerns were expressed regarding the applicant’s potential to influence the trial or threaten the victim if granted bail [T4]. The court determined that the case was unfit for release under Section 439 of the CrPC [T5] because of the seriousness of the offense, the victim’s lack of examination, and the possible hazards involved. The court denied the bail application, emphasizing that the observations included in the order applied solely to the bail application and should not have any bearing on the result of the trial [T5]. Following the examination of the principal witnesses, the applicant was allowed to resubmit the application, and the trial court was instructed to record the evidence as soon as possible [T5].

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Analysis Written by – K.Immey Grace

Click here to view the judgement