IQBAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the first informant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant is not named in F.I.R. and has been falsely implicated on account of business rivalry; that after kidnapping of Adnan son of first informant Abdul Gafoor, a demand for ransom of Rs.15 lacs is alleged to have been made from mobile no.9259595380, which does not belong to applicant; that it is wrong to say that the payment of Rs.7 lacs towards ransom money was made and the kidnapped boy was recovered from the custody of applicant and 3 others; that the recovery of money, allegedly paid as ransom money is alleged to have been made from the dicky of car from which the applicant and three others were arrested as well as kidnapped boy was recovered; that the real fact is that the first informant runs a confectionery shop and the applicant's joint family also runs a confectionery shop (registration of which in the name of Ashraf real uncle of applicant) at a distance about 1 km from the confectionery shop of the first informant; that there is cut throat competition in the business of confectionery shop between the first informant and the applicant and due to above business rivalry, the applicant has been falsely implicated; that the recovery of Rs.7 lacs has been falsely planted of which there is no independent witness; that in fact the above sum of Rs.7 lacs has been taken from the house of applicant, which was kept at his home on account of transaction of sale between his uncles Sri Akram and Aslam; that since applicant's uncle Akram was going to Dubai and was in need of money so he agreed to sell his share in the property, and another uncle Aslam agreed to purchase his share in the property for a sum of Rs.7 lacs, paid entire sale consideration in advance and executed an agreement for sale in favour of Aslam on 10.5.2015 through Notary Public, copy of which is filed at Annexure No.5 to the application; that the above agreement was followed by a sale deed dated 7.9.2015, copy filed at Annexure No.6 to the supplementary affidavit dated 21.11.2015; that the above money of applicant's uncle Aslam was kept at home of the applicant, who lives with his uncles in joint family and the same money has been taken by the police and has been falsely shown to have been recovered from the dicky of car as amount which was paid in ransom; that the entire story of recovery of kidnapped boy as well as recovery of ransom money allegedly paid by the first informant, is wrong and concocted; that it is wrong to say that the money recovered was the same money, which was allegedly paid by first informant to the kidnappers; that the payment of ransom money is alleged to have been made at Mussoorie bridge on 10.5.2015 at 00.23 a.m. and the recovery of kidnapped boy has also been made, the same day at 2:30 p.m., after a period about 14 hours from the same place; that the mobile by which the demand of ransom money was made has been recovered from the possession of co-accused Imran; that the applicant is a student of BCA and has no criminal history;that the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail; that the applicant is in custody since 10.5.2015.

(3.) Learned AGA and learned counsel for the first informant vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and contended that it is absolutely wrong to say that the applicant has been falsely implicated due to business rivalary of first informant with the applicant's uncle; that it is not disputed that first informant runs a very good confectionery shop and the uncle of applicant also runs the confectionery shop at a long distance, but the first informant believes in healthy competition in business with better quality of confectionery items; that the contention of false implication of applicant due to alleged business rivalry is absolutely wrong and baseless; that had there been any reason for false implication, Mohd. Ashraf, who runs the shop or the applicant could have been named in F.I.R. itself; that it is not disputed that the first informant runs business of confectionery shop and the uncle of applicant also runs a confectionery shop, but despite the healthy business competition, there can be no reason for false implication of the nephew of owner of other confectionery shop leaving the alleged main competitor; that it is clear from the papers filed by the applicant himself that the agreement for sale dated 10.5.2015 allegedly executed before the notary advocate at Civil Court, Ghaziabad, has been forged and fabricated for the purposes of obtaining bail by justifying the concocted story that the recovered money to be belonging to the applicant's uncle Aslam; that it is noteworthy that the above agreement is alleged to have been executed on 10.5.2015 (time not clear) itself, the same day on which the recovery of kidnapped child and money has been made during noon; that the police or first informant could not have prior knowledge of the alleged agreement likely to be executed on payment of Rs.7 lacs, the entire sale consideration within the family members; that the copy of sale deed filed as Annexure No.6 to the supplementary affidavit shows that in the sale deed dated 7.9.2015, the entire amount of consideration is mentioned to have been paid through various cheques detailed at page 13 of the sale deed at page 47 of the supplementary affidavit; that for ascertaining safe return of his son the first informant had to pay ransom money and had put his signatures on top and bottom currency notes of all the bundles of currency notes; that thereafter the first informant had moved an application to the station incharge of police station, that the ransom money of Rs.7 lacs has been paid to the kidnappers at Mussoorie bridge, after mentioning his name Gafoor on top and bottom of every bundle of currency notes and the kidnappers have assured him of returning his son; that the money recovered from kidnappers has been found bearing name of applicant at the top and bottom of each bundle of currency notes; that the applicant has not come with clean hands and has made an attempt to play fraud on the Court and to obtain bail with the help of forged and fabricated papers; that the applicant if released on bail, shall either abscond or tamper with prosecution evidence; that it is wrong to say that applicant is running a confectionery shop with his uncle and his plea of running the confectionery shop is self contradictory to his plea of his being a BCA student.