IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 854 of 2011 Date of decision : 03.11.2011. ____________________________________________________________ Gulfam …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh . …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the Petitioner : Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. A.G. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 281 of 2010 dated 24.11.2010 registered at Police Station, Sadar, Solan, under Sections 364-A, 302, 201 IPC. 2. It has been stated in the application that the petitioner has been implicated in hot haste just on the basis of call details of SIM No. 9997567714 belonging to one Pappu which was being used by his son Parveen allegedly belonging to the petitioner. It has also been alleged that said mobile phone was used for demanding ransom. It has been alleged that no investigation has been done connecting the petitioner with the mobile set, SIM from which alleged ransom calls were made to the mobile set, SIM where the said calls were made. It appears the ______________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? yes 2 police have believed hearsay evidence of Pardeep. The call detail record procured by the police do not support the case of the investigation. The investigating agency has not collected legal evidence so as to connect the petitioner with the commission of offence. 3. The investigation in the case is complete and no recovery is to be made from the petitioner. The petitioner got married recently and is sole bread earner of the family. The petitioner has been in custody since 1.12.2010. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. The prayer has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail. 4. The bail application has been opposed by the learned Additional Advocate General on the basis of status report. It has been stated that the case has been registered on the basis of written complaint of Mohammad Irfan, who came to the Police Station on 24.11.2010. It has been stated that Mohammad Sahil aged about 7 years, student of 2nd standard, Chambaghat and son of Mehboob Ali, brother-in-law of the complainant had been missing since 11.10.2010, his missing report was lodged on 11.10.2010. Noor Hasan grand father of Mohammad Sahil informed Mehboob Ali that some goons had been demanding ransom amount of `.3,00,000/- in exchange of Sahil otherwise he would be kill him. On this Mehboob Ali went to village Jansath Muzaffarnagar, U.P. on 17.11.2010. The demands of ransom made to Noor Mohammad were confirmed by Mehboob Ali on telephone to the complainant also. On this case was registered. 3 5. It has come in the investigation that a call of petitioner was received on the mobile phone of Pardeep informing that he had kidnapped a child and requested him to keep the child with his sister but Pardeep denied to oblige the petitioner. On receiving this information, the petitioner was interrogated and he has disclosed that he came to Solan on 10.10.2010, he was in need of money. He was acquainted with the child as he had visited the house of Mehboob father of Mohammad Sahil at Chambaghat twice or thrice and stayed there. He took the child and kept the child at Muzaffar nagar for some time and then after killing him threw his body in the canal. 6. The petitioner was arrested on 30.11.2010 from Muzaffar nagar. The statement of Pardeep has been recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The petitioner made a disclosure statement that on 15.10.2010 after strangulating and killing Mohammad Sahil, his body was thrown in canal. He has also destroyed his mobile phone and threw in the Kuhal. He kept the child from 11.10.2010 to 14.10.2010 after kidnapping at different places which he can identify, he ultimately got identified those places. He also identified the canal where dead body of Sahil was thrown. It has come in the investigation that petitioner had come from Jansath to Solan and kidnapped the boy on 11.10.2011. He strangulated the boy on 15.10.2010 and threw his body in the canal. A prayer has been made for rejection of the bail application. 7. I have heard both sides and perused the police file. The allegations against the petitioner are very serious. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has not been 4 connected with mobile phone from which demands of ransom were made has no force. Similarly, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no legal evidence on record to connect the petitioner with the commission of offence will be considered at the appropriate stage during trial. According to investigating agency, the petitioner knew the boy, his father as he visited them twice/thrice at Chambaghat, Solan. The petitioner and the father of the boy are cousins. They are permanent residents of one place. The petitioner kidnapped the boy and took him from one place to another from 11.10.2010 to 15.10.2010. The boy became weak and his release would have brought the petitioner to ridicule. Therefore, the petitioner strangulated the boy on 15.10.2010 and threw him in the canal. In view of seriousness of allegations, the petitioner is not entitled to bail. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 8. The observations made in this judgment are for disposal of bail application only and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. November 3, 2011 ( Kuldip Singh ) (GR) Judge.