The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution is fundamental, and prolonged detention without trial is unjustifiable.

JUDGMENT

ANISH DAYAL, J.

1. These applications have been filed seeking regular bail in FIR no. 02/2018 for the two accused. Accused Rahul@ Sumit has been in custody for about 4 years and has no previous involvements (as per the Nominal Roll dated 01st February 2024) and interim bail was granted to him in 2018, 2020 and 2021 for periods ranging from 3 days to 7 months. Accused Omprakash @ Omi was in custody for about 6 ½ years (as per the Nominal Roll dated 29th April 2024), no previous involvements are indicated and no interim bail has been granted as yet.

2. As per the case of the prosecution, complainant Ashok Mittal resident of Panchsheel Park, New Delhi handed a complaint on 02nd January 2018 in the Crime Branch regarding kidnapping of his nephew Apoorv Mittal son of Shyam Lal Mittal, aged 29 years. He alleged that he was kidnapped by some unknown persons in the evening of 01st January 2018 from his office at 16 National Park, Lajpat Nagar– IV, near Moolchand Metro station. The complainant's brother and the victim's father, Shyam Lal Mittal, received a telephone call from the kidnapper who was using a mobile phone of the victim 98180355872.

3. At about 9:17 pm on 1st January 2018, ransom of Rs. 5 crore was demanded for the victim to be released on Shyam Lal Mittal's mobile phone (9310927616). An FIR no.02 /2018 was registered at P.S. Crime Branch under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’).

4. Efforts were immediately made to trace the victim and the kidnappers. Several mobile numbers were taken on interception. The kidnappers were making calls to the father of the victim by using the mobile of the victim.

5. On the intervening night of 5th and 6th January 2018, the kidnappers took delivery of Rs. 4 crores of ransom from the father of the victim and later released the victim near Radisson Hotel, Mahipalpur Delhi. However, they could not be tracked.

6. On 06th January 2018, information was received through interception of mobile phones and accused Rahul @ Sumit was arrested from Crown Plaza Mall, Faridabad, Haryana and Maruti Swift Dzire car number DL-1YD-7651 used in the crime was recovered from the spot at his instance.

7. The prosecution alleges that as per the disclosure of Rahul, the Maruti Swift Dzire car, driven by co-accused Omprakash @ Omi, was used for the kidnapping and transportation of the victim to a flat in East Vinod Nagar on 01st January 2018 and also used for receiving the ransom amount on 05th- 6th January 2018. The ownership of the said car was found in the name of accused Omprakash @ Omi.

8. Subsequently, at the behest of Rahul @ Sumit, two co-accused Ghanshyam and Sunil were also arrested from Sarai Kale Khan, Delhi and one more car, Tata Indica DL-1YE-6086 used in the crime was seized.

9. The prosecution claims that the amount of ransom Rs. 3.96 crores was recovered in the area of Modi Nagar, District Ghaziabad, UP and from the house of accused Rahul @ Sumit in Trilok Puri, Delhi. A handwritten note was recovered from the Maruti Swift Dzire car which noted the script which was to be read out by Omprakash @ Omi for demanding a ransom money. It was found as per the FSL report that the handwritten note was in the writing of Rahul. The calls made to Shyam Lal Mittal using the phone of the victim, had the same words as that which were written on the note.

10. Voice sample of Rahul @ Sumit matched with the voice recorded during the course of interception of the mobile phones.

11. As per the disclosure, Omprakash@ Omi was wearing a Police type uniform (uniform of Delhi Civil Defence) and used a toy type Pistol at the time of kidnapping in order to threaten the victim.

Submission on behalf of the Petitioners

12. Counsel for petitioners contended that out of the four accused, two had been granted bail, i.e. Sunil by the Trial Court and Ghanshyam by this Court. 13. Though the APP points out that the order of this Court dated 12th October 2023 granting bail to Ghanshyam, notes that there was no recovery made fro