- (1.) SHIV Shanker, J. Heard Sri S. K. Tyagi, learned Counsel for the applicant, Sri Ramesh Singha, learned Counsel for the complainant, learned A. G. A and perused the record.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is not named in the FIR. The kidnapee Kumar Annant, aged about 3 years was found in a lonely place on the road side on 17. 11. 2006 at 10. 15 A. M. towards the Kakore. Therefore, kid napee was not recovered from the posses sion of the present applicant. It is further contended that Rs. 50, 00, 000/- was withdrawn by Sri Naresh Gupta, father of the kidnapee, on 17. 11. 2006 at about 2. 30 P. M. from the con cerned Bank. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer reached at the house of informant from where he has proceeded towards the house of the present applicant situated at Ashok Nagar, Delhi. After returning from there, the arrest of the present applicant has been shown at about 4. 00 P. M. on the same day. When the kidnapee was released on the same day at 10. 15 A. M. and the amount of Rs. 50, 00, 000/- was withdrawn on the same day at about 2. 30 P. M from the Bank. Therefore, the amount of ransom cannot be given on the same day after 2. 30 P. M. to the applicant and he could not keep the amount of ransom in his village Kakore which is a long distance from his residence, Delhi. Therefore, Rs. 47, 50, 000/ out of Rs. 50, 00, 000/- as withdrawn, has been shown falsely to be recovered at his pointing out from his village and nothing was recovered from his possession or at his pointing out. Learned Counsel for the applicant further submitted that he has been falsely implicated in this case due to his younger brother Chhatrapal alias Dev who is main accused in this case.
(3.) IT is further contended that the statement of Lalit Kumar was recorded on 17. 11. 2006 in respect of Supurdagi of the kidnapee wherein nothing was stated to give the ransom to the miscreant. On the same day again his statement was recorded wherein the story of ransom has been de veloped. It is further contended that the applicant was got identified in the con cerned police station by the witnesses. No identification parade was held in the Jail. Therefore, the identity of the present appli cant is also suspicious. It is further con tended that the applicant was not having any Mobile and he had not contacted with the mother of kidnapee through any mobile for the ransom. Same has not been recov ered from his possession. Father of the applicant is running the booth of mother diary in the same sector at Noida where the applicant did work. Therefore, he has been falsely implicated in this case.;