New Delhi, April 9 A Delhi court has granted bail to two accused in an alleged job scam-cum-kidnapping case, observing that the investigating officer failed to satisfactorily explain key aspects of the investigation and that "seriousness alone cannot be the only reason to deny bail".
Additional Sessions Judge Bhupinder Singh granted the relief to Uttam Pratap and Sultan Khan on a personal bond of Rs 50,000 each, in the case filed under sections 140(2) (abduction for ransom, to cause grievous hurt) and 3(5) (common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita by the complainant, who was the victim's wife.
In its judgement dated April 4, the court said, "Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case, in particular, the clean antecedents and the period of incarceration, I find merits in the bail application."
Both had been in judicial custody since February 19.
According to the defence, Pratap had close relations with the victim, who runs an NGO in Shahdara. Pratap was allegedly cheated by the victim, who is involved in making forged appointment letters, fake training documents, and fabricating communications purportedly issued by government authorities. Pratap was allegedly given false promises of employment by the complainant and had paid a sum of Rs 25 lakh in furtherance of it.
The defence counsel for Khan had a similar story but added that Pratap used to identify people who were in need of a job and refer them to the victim.
Khan's son was also lured by the promises of a railway job and paid the victim Rs 12 lakh. He received a forged joining letter. Khan's counsel also stated that any money he has received from the complainant was not ransom but refunds she sent on account of the cheated amount.
Both the accused took a peculiar stance that they were the actual "victims" in this case who were being harassed by the police at the instance of the complainant and her husband with false abduction charges.
The prosecution opposed the applications, citing the gravity of the allegations and claiming there was "clinching evidence" against the accused, who allegedly played a "pivotal role" in the offence.
However, the court noted multiple gaps in the investigation, including the failure to collect CCTV footage from the alleged place of incident, and the absence of details regarding the vehicle or the route used in the purported abduction.
"There are many other aspects on which the Investigating Officer (IO) could not convince the court and it is believed that the same shall be taken due care of during the pending investigation. There appears to be much more in the case that has been shown to the court," the judge said, adding that financial transactions between the parties were evident.
The court also pointed out that no effective steps were taken to apprehend other co-accused persons named by the complainant and that the IO had not even visited the location where the victim was allegedly confined.
Observing that the accused were not required for further investigation, the court said, "Pre-trial detention is not meant to serve as punishment. The court must therefore balance the gravity of the accusation with the right to personal liberty and ensure that a person is not kept in custody unless such detention is truly required in the interest of justice."
The court granted bail subject to conditions including not leaving the country, not tampering with evidence, keeping their mobile phones switched on at all times, and cooperating with the investigation.