LALIT NARAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 22nd February, 1995, it was reported by Mr. B.D. Sharma to the Police at PS Mansarovar Park that his son Dinesh alias Debu, aged about II years was missing since 21st February, 1995. On the information having been received by the Police about a dead body on 24th February, 1995, the dead body of Debu was recovered from a Government plot at Kattu Farm in front of mosque. On 26th February, 1995, accused Naval Kishore was arrested from near Shahadra Railway Station. This accused made an extra judicial confession that he and the petitioner had hatched a conspiracy to kidnap Debu for a ransoni of Rs.l,00,000.00 . As per plan. Naval Kishore took the child Debu on his bicycle and got him a toffee from a shop near the plot. The child was then taken to the petitioner and then all of them went in the room where Naval Kishore was living. In the room, the petitioner caught hold of the legs of Debu and aforesaid Naval Kishore strangulated him with the belt of Debu himself. After killing Debu they dug a pit and buried his dead body in the pit. Fearing that the dead body may emit foul smell Naval Kishore took it out from the pit the next day and placed it in the corner of the plot opposite the mosque. The petitioner after having been arrested in this case filed a petition for being admitted to bail which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge by his order dated May 4, 1996. Present petition has now been filed by the petitioner for being admitted to bail.

(2.) The contention of Mr. Rajeshwar Dayal Mathur, Advocate for the petitioner, is that there are contradictions in the statement of Mr. B.D. Sharma made from time to time and the Investigating Officer has gone beyond the scope of the orders of Metropolitan Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge whereby he was directed to further investigate the matter. It is also the contention of Mr. Mathur that while in his first information given to the Police Mr. B.D. Sharma had stated that his son had gone outside to play, in his statement made on 25th February, 1995 he informed the police that his son had been taken by Naval Kishore. He further contends that the confessional statement of Naval Kishore cannot be used against the petitioner and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the matter. According to him, the C.F.S.L. report clearly shows that the child was sodomised before his death and the Police has not investigated this aspect as to who was the person who had sodomised him. The case, according to Mr. Mathur, is based on circumstantial evidence and the chain linking the circumstances was missing. No motive has allegedly been ascribed to the petitioner for committing the crime. Mr. Mathur placed reliance upon a judgment reported as Dasu v. State, 1985(1), Crimes 743 in support of his contention that there was no evidence worth the name indicating any motive on the part of the accused and depending on circumstantial evidence alone in the absence of proof of motive would be of immense significance and would put the Court on its guard to examine the circumstantial evidence bearing on the guilt of the appellant with more than the ordinary care and with circumspection.

(3.) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments of Mr. Mathur however I am unable to agree with the same. At the stage of deciding the bail application of the accused, the Court is not required to go into the finer details of the case to find out as to whether the accused has committed the offence or not as it may amount to prejudging the entire case which is not the scope of enquiry at the time of deciding the bail application. The matters which are required to be taken into consideration at the time of deciding the bail application of an accused involved in the. commission of a non-bailable offence are the nature and seriousness of the offence, the character of the evidence, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not being secured at trial and reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with. Besides the confessional statement of co-accused there are other witnesses who have named the petitioner being involved in the commission of offence. Witness Surinder Pal has stated that on 21st February, 1995 about 3.00 or 3.15 p.m. he had seen Naval Kishore going on the bicycle on the carrier of which the petitionerwas sitting and Dinesh alias Debu was sitting on the front rod of the bicycle and all alighted at the plot near the gate. To the same effect is the statement of Mr. Abhi Lal. Ms. Usha and Mangesh Kumari, sisters of the deceased Debu have also made statements before the police that they had seen Naval Kishore-petitioner and Debu going on the bicycle on 21st February, 1995 at about 3.00 p.m. The petitioner was last seen with the deceased and has also been implicated by the co-accused in his confessional statement.