The judgment emphasizes that the seriousness of the offence is not the sole criterion for denying bail and highlights the limited circumstances under which the liberty of an undertrial could be restricted, as articulated in the Sanjay Chandra case.

JUDGMENT

Vikas Mahajan, J.

1. This is a bail application under Section 439 CrPC seeking regular bail in FIR No.394/2020 under Sections 364A/365/342/323/506/102B/34 IPC registered at PS New Ashok Nagar. The case of the prosecution is that the mother of the victim on 03.09.2020 made a complaint to the police at 10:02 p.m. that the victim, her daughter, aged about 24 years went to HDFC Bank, Sector-02, Noida, U.P at about 01:30 p.m. with her ATM, passbook and cheque book and she has not returned home and despite searching for her, the victim could not be found. She suspected that some unknown person has kidnapped her daughter by luring her. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR was registered under Section 365 IPC.

2. Subsequently, on 03.09.2020 itself, the father of the victim went to the Police Station and stated that his daughter has been kidnapped for ransom and the kidnapper has demanded Rs. 40 lacs and threatened to kill his daughter, in case the demand is not fulfilled.

3. The father of the victim also produced few video recordings as well as Whatsapp messages regarding the demand for ransom. On the basis of the statement of the father, Sections 364A/506/342/323/120B/34 IPC were also added in the case.

4. Search was made for the victim with the help of location and CDR of victim's mobile number and the victim was recovered on 04.09.2020 from the custody of accused persons namely, Simpal Srivastav (petitioner herein) and her boyfriend Shah Alam from Village Chhalera, Sector-44, Noida (U.P). The said accused persons were arrested on 04.09.2020.

5. The victim and the accused persons were medically examined at Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital. The disclosure statement of the accused persons as well as the statement of the victim, were also recorded. Recoveries were effected at the instance of the accused persons from Village Chhalera, Sector-44, Noida, U.P as well as from B-579, Gali No.5 Sangam Vihar, Delhi. The mobile phone of father and younger sister of the victim were also seized.

6. The statement of victim under Section 164 CrPC was recorded and subsequently Sections 506/342/323 IPC were also added. Voice samples of co-accused Shah Alam was sent to FSL, Rohini. After completion of necessary investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused persons under Sections 364A/365/342/323/506/120B/34 IPC.

7. During investigation statement under Section 164 CrPC of the victim was recorded wherein she alleged that she was kidnapped by both the accused persons for ransom and she was also beaten by them. Her mobile phone was also taken by the accused person from which the calls were made and Whatsapp messages were sent demanding ransom. She was also threatened by the accused person and was wrongly confined.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a young woman of around 23 yrs and her antecedents are clean. She is in custody for the last about three years. Reference is also made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the proviso to Section 437(1)(i) CrPC to contend that even in cases where there is reasonable belief that the undertrial has committed an offence punishable with death or with imprisonment for life, the bar on granting bail in Clause (i) of Section 437 (1) CrPC stands statutorily excepted by the proviso to the Sub-section when the under trial is a woman. He submits that the petitioner being a young woman of around 23 years is entitled to the benefit of the said provision.

9. Additionally, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that FIR in question was registered at 22:02 hours whereas the case of the prosecution is that the Whatsapp messages/calls demanding ransom were received by the victim's sister/father between 02:20 p.m. to 04:50 p.m. on 03.09.2020 and these facts are conspicuously absent in the FIR recorded.

10. He further submits that the delay of five to six hours as well as the non-mentioning of the messages and the ransom calls in the FIR it