Vijay Kumar Verma - (1.) IN this second bail application, prayer for bail has been made on behalf of applicant Jaidev S/o Raja Ram, who is facing trial in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 10, Bareilly, in S.T. No. 1210 of 2007, arising out of Case Crime No. 2278 of 2006, under Section 364A, I.P.C., P. S. Prem Nagar, district Bareilly.
(2.) THE first bail application bearing No. 19701 of 2007 was not decided on merit and the same was rejected being not pressed, vide order dated 18.3.2008. I have heard arguments of Sri Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, advocate appearing for the applicant and A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record. An F.I.R. about kidnapping of Sahib, aged about 8 years, son of the complainant Mohd. Shariq Husain was lodged on 4.11.2006 by the complainant at P. S. Prem Nagar, where a case under Section 364, I.P.C. was registered against one unknown person at Crime No. 2278 of 2006. The allegation in the F.I.R. was that son of complainant was enticed away on 29.10.2006 by some unknown person. Further case of prosecution is that kidnapped Sahib was recovered from the applicant on 5.11.2006. It is also alleged that a sum of Rs. 3,00,000 (three lacs) was demanded as ransom for rescuing Sahib.
(3.) THE main submission made by learned counsel for the applicant was that the applicant is in jail since 5.11.2006, but his trial has not concluded and hence, on this ground, the applicant deserves bail, as due to delay in trial, fundamental right of speedy trial of the applicant envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution is being infringed. Next submission made by learned counsel was that no such incident as alleged had occurred and the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case fabricating false story of kidnapping the son of the complainant. It was further submitted in this context that the applicant was servant in the house of complainant and due to dispute of wages, false story of kidnapping the son of the complainant and recovery from the applicant was concocted.;