JUDGMENT

V.K. Shali, J. (oral)

1. This is a petition filed by the complainant Paramvir Rana for setting aside the order dated 18.7.2011 by virtue of which bail was granted to accused Paresh Grewal (respondent no.2) by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Saket in respect of an offence under Section 364A/386/120B/34 IPC registered vide FIR no.47/2011 of P.S. Dhaula Kuan.

2. Before coming to the contentions urged by Mr.Tulsi, learned senior counsel for seeking cancellation of the bail of respondent, it will be worthwhile to give brief facts of the case.

3. The complainant, Paramvir Rana and the respondent no.2 are ostensibly students of two separate Colleges in South Delhi Campus of Delhi University. On 05.3.2011, Paramvir Rana lodged a report with the local police of Dhaula Kuan that on 01.3.2011 at about 10.00 am, he was abducted at the gunpoint in his Swift car bearing registration number DL9C6945 from the gate of Ram Lal Anand College by four unknown persons who took him to Sonepat, Panipat and other secret place in Haryana. They demanded ransom from his father on his mobile no.9810017260 from the victim's mobile No.9999707034 and illegally restrained him for more than 12 hours under the fear of death. He was physically assaulted during his detention and he was set free only after a sum of Rs.35 lacs was extracted from his father.

4. On 5.3.2011, the accused Sandeep Chikara was arrested which unfolded the mystery of abduction and it lead to arrest of number of accused persons (8 in all). During the course of investigation and on the basis of a disclosure statement of one of the accused persons respondent no. 2 was also arrested on 28.4.2011. He was granted bail by the impugned order by the learned Sessions Judge by observing that the only evidence against the respondent no. 2 is a disclosure statement of co-accused as per the charge sheet. It was also observed by the learned Judge that the other piece of evidence pointed out by the IO was a missed call made by the respondent no. 2 on 26.02.2011 to the complainant whereupon the latter had returned the call.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that both the victim and the respondent no. 2/accused belong to the same village Bijwasan and the accused had helped one Rajesh Kumar @ Bharti in getting accommodation on rent in the same village. It may be pertinent here to mention that Rajesh Kumar @ Bharti is a person having involvement in as many as 18 cases for serious offences in areas around Delhi. The learned Sessions Judge did not attach any importance to the submissions of the learned counsel for the complainant and observed that there was no sufficient evidence to connect the accused with Rajesh Kumar @ Bharti and the only evidence brought on record is the disclosure statement and the phone call made much prior to the date of abduction and he granted bail to the respondent no. 2.

6. Mr. Tulsi, the learned Sr. Adv. has challenged the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the ground that the same is totally arbitrary, unreasonable and capricious in as much as the bail has been granted to the respondent no.2/accused despite the fact that there was ample evidence which was neither placed in full measure before the learned Trial Court nor appreciated. The second limb of the submission made by the learned senior counsel is that after the grant of bail, the respondent no.2/accused either himself or through his other family members had administered threats to the father of the petitioner that in case they testified against him, they will be visited with dire consequences. Mr. Tulsi, the learned senior counsel has contended that all the other remaining accused persons are in custody and the respondent no.2/accused being on bail is creating a threat to the holding of a fair trial, and therefore, is misusing his liberty. Therefore, his bail may be cancelled. Mr. Tulsi, has referred to number of authorities in this rega