Delhi High Court Grants Bail in Kidnapping Case: Lack of Direct Identification and Reliance on Circumstantial Evidence Lead to Relief for Accused After Prolonged Custody

Court’s Decision
The High Court of Delhi granted bail to the petitioners, considering their prolonged detention and lack of substantial evidence. The Court noted that the petitioners had been in custody for 6 ½ years and 4 years, respectively, without prior involvement in any other case. Bail was granted on the condition that they furnish a personal bond and comply with certain restrictions.

Facts
The petitioners were accused in a case of kidnapping and ransom under FIR no. 02/2018. The victim was kidnapped on January 1, 2018, and a ransom of ₹5 crore was demanded. The ransom was partially paid, and the victim was released on January 5, 2018. The petitioners were arrested based on interceptions and recovery of ransom money. The prosecution claimed that one of the accused was wearing a uniform resembling that of the Delhi Civil Defence and used a toy pistol during the kidnapping.

Issues
The primary issue was whether the petitioners should be granted bail, considering the nature of the accusations and the evidence presented.

Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioners argued that they had been in custody for several years and that two other accused had already been granted bail. They contended that they had been implicated based on disclosures and interceptions. It was further argued that identification of the petitioners was not made by the victim or his father, and the prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence such as voice samples and handwritten notes.

Respondent’s Arguments
The prosecution opposed the bail, citing incriminating evidence, including a handwritten note matching one of the accused’s handwriting, voice samples, and the recovery of ransom money from the accused’s premises. The prosecution also pointed out that the trial was ongoing, and further evidence was yet to be presented.

Analysis of the Law
The Court referred to the principles of granting bail, including the duration of custody and the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the crime but emphasized that prolonged detention without trial could not be justified, especially when two of the accused had already been granted bail.

Precedent Analysis
The Court cited the Supreme Court‘s decision in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra (2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693), which stressed the importance of granting bail in cases of prolonged detention and the fundamental right to a speedy trial.

Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that the petitioners had already been in custody for a significant period without prior criminal records. Given the delay in the trial and the fact that 18 out of 31 witnesses had been examined, it was unlikely that the trial would conclude soon. The lack of direct identification of the petitioners by the victim and reliance on circumstantial evidence further supported the Court’s decision to grant bail.

Conclusion
The petitioners were granted bail with conditions, including restrictions on leaving the country, regular reporting to the police, and ensuring they do not tamper with evidence or contact prosecution witnesses.