Back
2021 Supreme(Del) 481
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
In The Matter Of: Nisha Tayal - Appellant
Versus
State (NCT Of Delhi) - Respondent
Bail Appln. 1290 of 2021
Decided on : 16-08-2021
For the Appellant :Mr.Pashupati Nath Razdan, Advocate with Mr.Astik Gupta, Ms. Nandita Pateria and Mr. Shashwat Prakash Advocates
For the Respondent: Ms. Kusum Dhalla, with SI Sanjay Kumar, PS Prasad Nagar
Point of law: Kidnapping - Heinous crime - Rejection of bail - possibility of the petitioner coming out and tampering with evidence or threatening the witnesses cannot be ruled out.
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 439 - Penal Code, 1860 - Section 364A - Anticipatory bail-Kidnapping - Offence punishable life imprisonment or death - ingredients of the offence under Section 364A IPC - Heinous offence - Not entitled for bail.
Finding of the Court:
An offence under Section 364A IPC is a heinous offence punishable with life imprisonment or death. The consideration for granting bail under Section 439 CrPC are now fairly well settled - Nature and gravity of the offence which is determined by the punishment for that offence; The position and status of the accused with reference to the victim; Likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; Tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses - petitioner is the aunt of the main accused. The call detail records shows that the petitioner and the main accused were in regular touch. The petitioner's photo has been identified by the victim and all these at this juncture gives rise to a prima facie case against the petitioner. The possibility of the petitioner coming out and tampering with evidence or threatening the witnesses cannot be ruled out. The petitioner is therefore not entitled to bail at least till the victim/Mukesh Kumar is examined.
Result: Bail application rejected
JUDGMENT :
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
1. This is a petition under Section 439 CrPC for grant of regular bail in FIR No.263/2020 dated 07.10.2020 registered at Police Station Prasad Nagar for offence under Section 364A IPC.
2. The facts in brief leading to the present bail application are as follows:-
a) A complaint was received from one Ms. Laxmi, W/o Sh. Mukesh Kumar R/o 16/284-H, Bapa Nagar, Hardhayan Singh Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi stating that her husband Mukesh Kumar left the house for the company in which he is working i.e. MZUHI Gold having its Head Office at SCF-1, Hill View Enclave, Peer Muchalla, Zikarpur.
b) The complainant stated that her husband left the house stating that some people called him at INA for some work. It is stated that she received a phone call from him asking her to arrange about 1 or 2 lakhs at once and if cash is not available then arrange some jewellery etc. He also asked the complainant to come along with his cheque book at Shahdara Metro Station.
c) The complainant has stated that Mukesh Kumar told her that one of his associate will meet her at Shahdara Metro Station and she will hand over jewellery and cheque book to him.
d) The complainant has stated that Mukesh Kumar told that the name of his associate is Pankaj and he also gave his telephone number. She states that she handed over the jewellery of about Rs.3 lakhs to him at Shahdara Metro Station.
e) It is stated that about 9:30 p.m. in the evening she received another phone call from her husband wherein he asked her to arrange 3-4 lakhs and told her that he will call in the morning. On the receipt of the said complaint, the present FIR was registered.
f) Investigation revealed that the call of Mukesh Kumar was traced and he was found at H.No.13, Gali No.1, Nandan Nagar, Transport Nagar, Meerut, UP. Accused Nitin Kansal was arrested on the same day when Mukesh Kumar was rescued. Mukesh Kumar was taken to Lady Haringe Medical College and Smt.S.K. Hospital, New Delhi for medical examination.
g) Mukesh Kumar gave his statement under Section 161 CrPC on 08.10.2020. In the statement under Section 161 CrPC he revealed that accused Nitin Kansal was interested in taking distributorship in the company where Mukesh Kumar was working and Nitin Kansal was given the dealership. Goods were supplied to Nitin Kansal.
h) It is stated that in September, 2020 Nitin Kansal informed Mukesh Kumar that some of the goods supplied by the company are not being sold and are lying in his godown and Nitin Kansal wanted to end the agreement. He asked Mukesh Kumar to take back the goods and demanded Rs.10-15 lakhs. It is stated that Mukesh Kumar informed Nitin Kansal that he would take him to Zikarpur and talk to the owner of the company one Dinesh Singhala.
i) It is stated that on 10.09.2020, Mukesh Kumar and Nitin Kansal went on way to the office of the company where Mukesh Kumar was working, reached Mohali, Punjab and stayed at Artharb Hotel. It is stated that the next day they reached Zikarpur where the office of the company is situated and had a meeting with owner of the company.
j) It is stated that Nitin Kansal explained about the losses he suffered and was angry. It is stated that in the evening they stayed at Vashudev Hotel where Nitin Kansal called a girl in the hotel and had taken obscene photographs of Mukesh Kumar at the hotel.
k) It is stated that the petitioner was informed about the photographs. It is stated that Nitin Kansal forced him to visit Meerut but he refused to meet him and did not go to Meerut.
l) It is stated that in October, 2020, Mukesh Kumar received a phone call from a person, who introduced himself as Vivek. It is stated that the said Vivek told Mukesh Kumar that he wants distributorship of the company in Bareilly. It is stated that the said Vivek asked Mukesh Kumar to come at INA Metro Station on 06.10.2020. It is stated that at about 9:30 a.m. he reached INA Metro Station and called Vivek and started moving towards Kotla Mubarkpur where a silver colour car
