The Delhi High Court has rendered its judgment on the pre-arrest bail application related to an abduction case. The court’s decision highlights the involvement of the applicant in the alleged abduction incident, as per the material presented by the prosecution. The victim was reportedly forced into a car by multiple individuals at the factory premises, leading to concerns of wrongful confinement. Follow the latest developments of this case closely. #DelhiHighCourt #LegalCase #AbductionCase
Facts
- Complainant was allegedly taken to the applicant’s factory where a demand of ₹18,00,000 was made with threats.
- Other accused persons allegedly slapped the complainant and threatened him at the instance of the applicant.
- Applicant allegedly drove the car during the incident.
- An amount of ₹1,50,000 to ₹2,00,000 was allegedly paid by the applicant to the complainant for a certain purpose, but the loan could not be sanctioned.
- Alleged heated argument between the complainant and the applicant leading to a breakdown in communication.
- Incident took place on 22.04.2024 at around 05:00 p.m. while the complainant was en route to Bank of Baroda with his nephew and Sunil Kumar.
- Three other persons, Mohan Budhiraja, Arvind, and Surender, allegedly engaged in heated arguments with the complainant at the factory.
- Applicant allegedly demanded ₹5,00,000 to be deposited in his account immediately.
- FIR registered on complaint by Mr. Rajesh regarding the applicant and the loan issue.
- Applicant allegedly forced to sit inside a car along with Sunil Kumar after a physical confrontation at the factory.
Arguments
- Applicant visited the Police Station during initial enquiry but left without informing anyone and switched off his phone.
- There are allegations of threats made by the applicant and a fear of influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence.
- Custodial interrogation of the applicant is deemed necessary as he is seen in CCTV footage abducting the complainant.
- Photographs from CCTV footage of the factory premises are being relied upon by the applicant’s counsel.
- Complainant and Sunil visited the applicant’s office, made a payment of ₹5,00,000, and then the applicant was allowed to leave the factory.
- Applicant claims to be falsely implicated in the case, stating the incident arose from a minor altercation.
- The delay of seven days in registering the FIR is mentioned, with the offence alleged to have occurred on 22.04.2024 but reported on 23.04.2024 and FIR registered on 01.05.2024.
- Additional Public Prosecutor asserts that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature.
- The atmosphere was described as cordial during the incident
- The victim was taken to the Taxi and left the factory premises
- The allegations, even when considered seriously, do not indicate the commission of any offense
Analysis
- The material presented by the prosecution establish a prima facie involvement of the applicant.
- Any interrogations of the respondents by the police could harm the ongoing investigation and impede uncovering all facets of the conspiracy.
- Concern exists regarding the applicant’s potential to influence witnesses, thus pre-arrest bail cannot be granted routinely.
- Investigation conducted so far does not indicate false implication of the applicant.
- Granting pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the CrPC is to be done sparingly as it is an extraordinary power.
- The victim was visibly resisting the accused persons’ attempts to push him into a car.
- The investigating agency should be given fair play in conducting the investigation at this nascent stage.
- Observations made in this analysis should not impact the trial outcome or be taken as an opinion on the case’s merits.
- The victim has been forced into a car by 3-4 people as seen in the CCTV footage.
- Custodial interrogation is more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect under the CrPC.
- Granting anticipatory bail would be a routine process and could be used as a shield.
- This case is not suitable for granting anticipatory bail under Section 438.
- The argument that the complainant was not abducted with intent to be secretly and wrongfully confined is considered meritless by the Court.
- The victim was clearly compelled by force to sit in the car and taken to the applicant’s factory.
- The complainant was forcibly pushed into the car, indicating wrongful confinement.
- The use of force in compelling the complainant shows a clear act of confinement against the victim’s will.
Decision
- The present application is dismissed
- The court decision is in accordance with the RPC section
- Original names of the parties involved are to be used in the judgement
Case Title: SURAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI (2024:DHC:4045)
Case Number: BAIL APPLN.-1782/2024
