Vijay Kumar Verma - (1.) BY means of this second bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prayer for bail has been made on behalf of the applicant Kallu alias Guru Dayal in Case Crime No. 382 of 2007, under Sections 364A and 368, I.P.C., P.S. Bakewar, District Etawah.
(2.) THE first bail application of the applicant bearing No. 21094 of 2008 was rejected on merit by Hon'ble S. S. Chauhan, J., vide order dated 11.12.2008. An F.I.R. regarding kidnapping of Dilip Kumar was lodged by his father Surendra Kumar on 29.11.2007 at P.S. Bakewar, District Etawah, whereupon a case under Sections 364A and 368, I.P.C., was registered at Case Crime No. 382 of 2007 against unknown persons. The allegation against the applicant is that he and other co-accused persons kidnapped the son of complainant and demanded the ransom of rupees ten lacs for releasing him. I have heard lengthy arguments of Shri J. S. Audichya, advocate, appearing for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
(3.) THE main submission made by learned counsel in support of the second bail application is that bail of the applicant in Case Crime No. 576 of 2007 has been granted by Sessions Judge/Special Judge (D.A.A.) Court No. 3, Firozabad, vide order dated 18.3.2008, passed in Bail Application No. 80 of 2008, in which the arrest of the applicant in police encounter on 24.12.2007 has been held doubtful and hence in present case also, the applicant deserves to be released on bail, because he has not been named in the F.I.R. and recovery of kidnapee Dilip Kumar from the applicant in police encounter on 24.12.2007 becomes doubtful. THE contention of the learned counsel was that in view of the finding recorded by Special Judge (D.A.A.), Firozabad, in the order dated 18.3.2008, entire case of the prosecution becomes false and hence the applicant deserves bail on the ground of parity of that order. It was also submitted by learned counsel that no ransom was exchanged and false story of demanding ransom has been concocted.;