ABDUL MUNAF KHAN Vs. CBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the grant of regular bail in FIR No. RC.221/2011/E/0010, Police Station C.B.I./ EO -III, under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 364A, 368 & 386 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that the FIR of the present case was registered as two businessmen, namely, Sh. A.G. Lenin and Sh.P. Anandan were abducted and confined somewhere in South East Delhi. The abductors demanded Rs. 25,00,000/ - for their release. It is further stated in FIR that Abdul Munaf and Bunty along with others are running the said abduction and extortion gang. On 28.11.2011, Abdul Munaf was found by the CBI in his residence and he was examined. In his examination, he disclosed that his associate Bunty is having the custody of the said two persons from Tamil Nadu and he can take the team to the said address. He also disclosed that some other persons are associated with them in this conspiracy of contacting businessmen from different parts of the country. With the help of Abdul Munaf, his associate Bunty was also apprehended by the CBI whereupon he disclosed the whereabouts of the abducted persons. The accused persons took the CBI team to house no. C -2, Block A -3 Mohan Garden, New Delhi in which two persons namely Rakesh and Yunus were found to be kept in custody two persons namely A.G. Lenin and Anandan who stated that they have been kept in the said house in custody since 25.11.2011. Thereafter the CBI team alongwith witnesses, recovered persons namely A.G. Lenin and Anandan and abductors namely Abdul Munaf, Bunty, Rakesh and Yunus were taken by the CBI team.

(3.) THE arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused are that no complaint of their abduction was made by any of their relatives/family members; that the ransom money was alleged to be demanded and paid through RTGS which clearly shows that the money was never meant to be for any ransom; that the story of the prosecution is in serious doubt as the statement of Addl. S.P. Sh. S. Balusubramany in a connected case was contradictory; that the alleged victims have refused to recognize the petitioner in their statements; that the footage was given by the bank in a sealed condition but the same was found to be unsealed and tampered when presented before the Court; that the petitioner has already undergone custody for almost 4 years; that all the prosecution witnesses have been examined. In support of his arguments the learned counsel relied upon the judgment in the case of Sanghian Pandian Rajkumar v. CBI and Another; Balkrishan Rajendraprasad Chaubey v. CBI and Another, (2014) 12 SCC 23 in which it was observed that when there is no possibility of the conclusion of trial within reasonable period, the accused person can be granted bail in serious offence too. Further in the case of Anil Mahajan v. Commissioner of Customs & Anr. : 2000 (53) DRJ, this Court observed that as the main witnesses are all official witnesses and there is no reasonable apprehension that the applicant would tamper with the evidences he should be released on bail.