SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(Del) 1487

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
P.S. TEJI, J.
AMIT KUMAR GUPTA & MONU – Petitioner
Versus
STATE – Respondent
BAIL APPLN. 65/2016
Decided On : 23-03-2016

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. M.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate.
Mr. Amit Chadha, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
Mr. Abhinav Agnihotri, Advocate for Complainant.

The court emphasized the gravity of the offence and the stage of the trial in deciding the bail application.

Headnote:

BAIL - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code - Section 363/302/201/34 - The court discussed the principles of granting bail and considered factors such as prima facie evidence, nature and gravity of the accusation, and likelihood of the offence being repeated. The court emphasized the gravity of the offence and the stage of the trial, leading to the dismissal of the bail application.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought bail in a case involving charges of kidnapping and murdering a five-year-old boy. The petitioner admitted involvement in the kidnapping and murder, but contended that there was no evidence pointing to his guilt.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the gravity of the offence and the stage of the trial did not warrant granting bail to the petitioner.

Issues: The issues included the petitioner's involvement in the kidnapping and murder, the lack of evidence pointing to his guilt, and the principles governing the grant of bail.

Ratio Decidendi: The court considered factors such as prima facie evidence, nature and gravity of the accusation, and likelihood of the offence being repeated in deciding the bail application.

Final Decision: The bail application filed by the petitioner was dismissed, considering the gravity of the offence and the stage of the trial.

JUDGMENT :

P.S. TEJI, J.

1. By this petition filed under Section 439 of Cr. P.C., the petitioner seeks bail in a case registered as FIR No. 373/2014 under Section 363/302/201/34 of Indian Penal Code, at Police Station New Usmanpur, Delhi.

2. The petitioner is charged with the offences of kidnapping and murdering a five year boy – Vasu Gupta, grandson of the complainant – Ram Chandra Gupta. It is informed by the complainant that on 24.04.2014 in the evening at about 6.30 pm his grandson Vasu Gupta, aged 5 years, medium built, fair complexion, height about 3 ft., wearing black colour T-Shirt and cream colour pant had gone into the street from the house for playing, but did not return back. Search of child was made in the nearby area, but he could not be traced. Accordingly, the FIR in question was registered and investigation started.

3. During the course of investigation, on 25.04.2014 vide DD No.11-A, Police Station Gokalpuri, Delhi, an information regarding dead body of a child, whose description were similar to that of the kidnapped child was received. Father of the child was called in GTB Hospital Mortuary, where the dead body was identified as that of the kidnapped child i.e. Vasu. The suspected uncle of the deceased -Amit Gupta @ Monu was interrogated. His activity from his mobile number 9891203060 was checked and it was found that he was continuously talking to mobile no.9210040738 since 24.04.2014 till the recovery of the dead body of Vasu. During interrogation, the petitioner – Amit Gupta admitted his involvement in the kidnapping for the fulfillment of his lust for money. He admitted that after kidnapping the child, he kept the child in his house and gave him a tab, cold drink with sleeping pills and also admistered him forcibly ‘musa ka gul’, substance of which, lying in a box was also recovered. During investigation, one hair, some pills, one tab make Samsung, Coca Cola Bottle, one pillow cover with some blood stain were recovered from the house of the petitioner – Amit Gupta.

4. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet has been filed in this case and the petitioner is charged with the offence punishable under Section 363/302/201/34 of IPC.

5. Mr. M.S. Ahluwalia, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that this case is registered in the year 2014, petitioner is in custody for the last one and half years, and there are more than 32 witnesses and out of them only one witness has been examined. It is further contended that even the impugned orders clearly states that the present case is based on circumstantial evidence and the star material witness, i.e., the complainant of the FIR in question has categorically deposed in his deposition that he never suspected the petitioner being involved in the offence.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that there is rivalry between the complainant and his family as he wanted to buy their property and it is only after four days that he named the petitioner in the case and got him implicated. Regarding recovery, it is contended that the petitioner’s house was sealed by the police on 27.07.2015 and the keys remained with the police till 29.07.2015 and for two days anything could have been planted in the house of the petitioner. It is further contended that the father of the deceased had lodged a case against one of his employees -Lalit and there is another employee – Hari, but the police did not examine them. It is further contended that the deceased boy was last seen at Mecca Masjid, who was taken by two persons and the said information was conveyed by two persons who were unloading the truck but he failed to inform the police instantly.

7. On the point of medical examination, it is contended that an allegation regarding administering tranquilizer to the deceased boy Vasu was made, but one of the FSL reports which is placed on record demonstrates that no tranquilizer has been found in the body of the deceased.

8. It is further contended that th





















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top