IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Bail Application 1st No.2563 of 2024 Shubham ......Applicant Vs. State of Uttarakhand …..Respondent With Bail Application 1st No.2559 of 2024 Rinku ......Applicant Vs. State of Uttarakhand …..Respondent Mr. Abhishek Verma, learned counsel, for the applicant. Mr. Pradeep Lohani, learned Brief Holder, for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J (Oral) The present bail application has been filed on behalf of Shubham, son of Ramkumar, aged 30, and Rinku, son of Naresh, aged 32, both residents of Ratan Ka Purva, Double Fatak, Roorkee, District Haridwar. The applicants are presently in judicial custody in connection with FIR No. 454 of 2024, registered at Police Station Kotwali Haridwar, District Haridwar, under Sections 364- A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard the learned counsels for the parties. 3. On 31.05.2024, Naresh Kumar, the husband of the informant, Poonam, left his house for work and later, around 8:00 PM, a call was made from his mobile number to the informant, wherein the caller demanded a ransom of ₹5,00,000 for his release. Upon her refusal, the amount was reduced to ₹3,00,000 and subsequently to ₹30,000. The informant, unable to arrange the amount, reported the matter to the police. The victim was eventually released without the payment of ransom. During the investigation, CCTV footage purportedly 2 showed the accused near the crime scene, and the accused were arrested based on the statements of the victim and the confessional statement of co-accused Ramkumar. The victim’s medical report recorded injuries allegedly sustained during his captivity. 4. The applicants assert that they have been falsely implicated in the present case and are not involved in the alleged offence. It is contended that the FIR was lodged after considerable delay without any plausible explanation, thereby raising doubts about its credibility. The applicants submit that the entire case is a result of previous financial disputes between the victim and co-accused Ramkumar, which led to a minor altercation on the intervening night of 30/31.05.2024. It is argued that the complainant, in an attempt to avoid repayment of debts, has exaggerated the facts and given the incident a false colour of kidnapping for ransom. 5. The applicants further contend that they were neither present at the alleged crime scene nor involved in any conspiracy to abduct the victim. The prosecution has failed to provide any concrete evidence, such as call detail records or independent witnesses, to corroborate its allegations. It is submitted that the CCTV footage relied upon by the prosecution does not conclusively establish their involvement. Moreover, the applicants state that their arrest is primarily based on the alleged confessional statement of co-accused Ramkumar, which is inadmissible in law and cannot be used as substantive evidence against them. 6. Additionally, the applicants maintain that no recovery has been made from them that links them to 3 the crime. They have no prior criminal antecedents and have been in judicial custody since 03.12.2024. Their prolonged incarceration is causing undue hardship to their families. The bail application filed before the Sessions Court was rejected on 20.12.2024, and they now seek relief from this Hon'ble Court on the grounds that the evidence on record does not establish a prima facie case against them. 7. The learned AGA, opposing the bail application, argues that the charges against the applicants are grave, involving an offence under Section 364-A IPC, which carries severe punishment. The prosecution relies on the statement of the complainant, Poonam, who stated that she received multiple ransom calls from the victim's mobile phone, and the voice on the call matched that of one of the accused. The victim, Naresh Kumar, in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., identified the applicants as among the persons who confined him in a room and assaulted him during his captivity. 8. Further, witness Shambhu Kumar, the son of the victim, stated in his statement that he assisted the informant in trying to locate the victim and saw the accused near the locality around the time of the crime. The prosecution also relies on the CCTV footage, which purportedly captures the applicants in the vicinity of the crime scene at the relevant time. 9. The medical report of the victim corroborates his allegations, as it records multiple injuries, including blunt force trauma, which is consistent with physical assault during captivity. Moreover, the prosecution asserts that the police recovered call records indicating 4 frequent communication between the accused before and after the alleged offence, strengthening the case against them. 10. However, upon careful scrutiny of the evidence on record, this Court finds that there exist several inconsistencies and gaps in the prosecution's case. The delay in lodging the FIR remains unexplained, which casts doubt on the veracity of the allegations. Furthermore, the prosecution primarily relies on circumstantial evidence without providing direct proof of the applicants' involvement in the alleged offence. 11. The CCTV footage does not conclusively establish the applicants' presence at the scene of the crime, and the confessional statement of co-accused Ramkumar, which forms a significant basis for their arrest, is inadmissible in law unless corroborated by independent evidence. No such corroborative material has been presented. 12. Additionally, there has been no recovery of ransom money or any other incriminating material linking the applicants to the offence. The medical report, though indicative of physical assault, does not specifically attribute the injuries to the applicants. The alleged ransom demand was made from the victim's mobile phone, but no forensic verification has been conducted to establish that the applicants made the calls. 13. Given these factors, along with the applicants' clean antecedents and prolonged incarceration, this Court finds that the applicants have made out a prima facie case for the grant of bail. The fundamental principle that 'bail is the rule and jail is the exception' applies, 5 especially since the trial has not yet commenced and unnecessary pre-trial detention must be avoided. 14. In view of the considerations mentioned above, this Court finds that the applicants are entitled to the benefit of bail. Consequently, the bail applications of the applicants are allowed, and it is directed that the applicants, Shubham, son of Ramkumar, and Rinku, son of Naresh, be released on bail, on furnishing their personal bonds and two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned. (Ashish Naithani, J.) 24.02.2025