Delhi District Court
State vs Javed (2-Jc) on 28 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. DHIRENDRA RANA
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-07, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS:
NEW DELHI
In the matter of:-
(Sessions Case No. 8652/2016)
CNR No. DLND01-001031-2015
FIR No. 11/2015
Police Station Crime Branch
Charge sheet filed u/sec 364A/395/342/411/120-
Under Section B IPC
Charge framed Under u/sec 364A/342/395/120-B
Section IPC against accused Javed,
Liyakat, Irfan, Naseem, Iliyas,
Abid, Muzakkir, Shaheed
Ahmed, Inam and Hassan
Hussain.
Accused Javed additionally
charged under section 397
IPC and 27 Arms Act
Accused Liyakat, Abid, Inam
additionally charged under
section 412 IPC
Accused Hasan Hussain
additionally charged under
section 174-A IPC
Javed s/o Shahbuddin r/o
Village Rupdaka, Tehsil
State Vs. Hathin, District Palwal,
Haryana (proclaimed offender
vide order dated 02.07.2022)
Liyakat s/o Yahuda r/o Village
SC No. 8652/2016 State Vs. Javed & Ors. Page No. 1 of 42
FIR No. 11/2015 PS Crime Branch
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2026.04.28
16:27:48 +0530
Rupdaka, Tehsil Hathin,
District Palwal, Haryana.
Irfan s/o Hussain Khan r/o
Village Tirwada PS Punhana,
District Mewat, Haryana.
Naseem s/o Sardar Khan r/o
Village Rupdaka PS Bahin,
District Palwal, Haryana.
Iliyas s/o Yahuda r/o Village
Rupdaka PS Bahin, District
Palwal, Haryana.
Abid s/o Yahuda r/o Village
Rupdaka PS Bahin, District
Palwal, Haryana.
Muzzakir s/o Hazi Isa @ Md.
Isa r/o Village Rawalki @
Mubarikpur, PS Punhaha,
District Mewat, Haryana.
(proceedings abated vide order
dated 10.03.2026)
Shaheed Ahmed s/o Chhutan
Khan r/o Village Nai, PS
Punhana, District Mewat,
Haryana.
Inam s/o Zaril Khan r/o
Village Rupdaka, PS Bahin,
Tehsil Hathin, District Palwal,
Haryana.
Hasan Hussain s/o Abdul
Majeed r/o Hodal Road,
Opposite Pakiza Dharam
Kanta, Punhana City, District
Nuh, Mewat, Haryana.
Date of institution 03.07.2015
Arguments concluded on 28.04.2026
Judgment Pronounced on 28.04.2026
SC No. 8652/2016 State Vs. Javed & Ors. Page No. 2 of 42
FIR No. 11/2015 PS Crime Branch
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2026.04.28
16:27:59 +0530
Decision Acquitted
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS 1.1 Events which set the prosecution machinery into motion is that on 03.02.2015, a telephone call received at Inter State Cell, Crime Branch, Chanakya Puri from Ami Jaymin Thakkar wherein she alleged that her husband Jaymin Thakkar had gone to Delhi in connection with a deal of scrap material. She further alleged that she was receiving ransom calls from some unknown persons from mobile phone of her husband and caller was demanding Rs. 10 lakhs as ransom in lieu of release of her husband. She apprehended that her husband had been kidnapped from Delhi. On the complaint of Ami Jaymin, present case was registered at PS Crime Branch. During course of investigation, complainant Ami Jaymin also stated that Rana Chintan had also been kidnapped with her husband. 1.2 After registration of case, raids were conducted to rescue the Jaymin Thakkar and Rana Chintan. On 04.02.2015, an information was received that the members of kidnapper gang would be coming to Cloth Market, Laxmi Market, Fatehpuri, Old Delhi to collect the ransom amount. A trap was laid near Old Delhi Railway Station and accused Javed was apprehended but three other accused persons ran away from there. Vehicle No. HR-27E-9242 used in the crime was recovered and victims Jaymin Thakkar and Rana Chintan were rescued from the vehicle. During investigation, it was revealed that Jaymin Thakkar and Rana Chintan were abducted on gun point by accused Javed and his associates for the purpose of ransom. Accused Javed also disclosed names of his associate i.e., Inam, Iliyas, Sahid @ Abdul, Irfan, Liyakat, Abid, Hassan, Naseem and Muzakkir.
SC No. 8652/2016 State Vs. Javed & Ors. Page No. 3 of 42
FIR No. 11/2015 PS Crime Branch
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2026.04.28
16:28:04 +0530
1.3 Investigation qua recovery vehicle No. HR-27E-9242 has been
conducted and same was found registered in the name of Hanif, who during inquiry disclosed that on 03.02.2015 and 04.02.2015, vehicle was in the possession of his brother in law i.e., accused Sahid. During investigation, it was revealed that accused Javed was the kingpin of the crime. He got number of victim Jaymin Thakkar, who was dealing in scrap material, from the website of victim. Thereafter, in criminal conspiracy with other accused persons and to kidnap Jaymin Thakkar for ransom, accused Javed planned to call Jaymin Thakkar to Delhi. Accused Javed contacted Jaymin Thakkar posing himself to be a scrap dealer and told that he had to sell a large amount of scrap material and offered Jaymin Thakkar the same on very competitive price. He further asked Jaymin Thakkar to come to Delhi to see the scrap material and to finalize the deal and also assured that he would make arrangements for stay of Jaymin Thakkar in Delhi. Allured by the offer of accused Javed, Jaymin Thakkar came to Delhi with Rana Chintan to finalize the deal. At the railway station, Jaymin Thakkar and Rana Chintan were received by accused Javed and his associates Inam, Iliyas and Sahid and they were taken to guest house in Tata Safari No. HR-27E-9242. However, both the victims were overpowered by the accused persons at gun point and both of them were taken to Village Tirwada, District Mewat, Haryana where they were made captive in the house of accused Irfan. Accused persons namely Liyakat, Abid, Hasan, Naseem and Muzzakir also joined them and both witnesses were beaten by accused persons and threatened of dire consequences. Accused persons robbed the articles i.e., three mobile phones, wrist watch, one laptop, two cloth bags etc. from the victims at gun point. Accused persons forced Jaymin Thakkar to call his family and asked for a ransom money of Rs. 1 crore which was later settled as Rs. 10 lacs. Accused persons kept on asking for the ransom money and Jaymin SC No. 8652/2016 State Vs. Javed & Ors. Page No. 4 of 42 FIR No. 11/2015 PS Crime Branch Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.04.28 16:28:08 +0530 Thakkar informed them that his father was sending ransom money to them through his source at Chandni Chowk. On this accused Javed alongwith his associates namely Iliyas, Inam and Irfan reached Chandni Chowk to collect ransom money from where accused Javed was apprehended and victims were rescued.
1.4 During investigation, statement under section 164 CrPC of victims were recorded and CAF and call details of mobile No. 8059046580 and 8059048580 were obtained. Later on accused Liyakat was arrested by police of police station Hathin and mobile phone of victim Jaymin Thakkar was recovered from him. Accused Liyakat was formally arrested in the present case. Accused Liyakat was correctly identified by the victim during TIP proceedings. On 23.04.2015, accused Irfan and Naseem were arrested and at their instance, accused Iliyas and Abid were apprehended on 24.04.2015 and one wrist watch make Titan of victim Jaymin Thakkar was recovered from accused Abid from his house.
1.5 On the basis of investigation, charge sheet under section 364A/395/342/411/120-B IPC was filed against accused Javed and Liyakat.
After arrest of accused Irfan, Naseem, Iliyas, Abid, Muzzakir and Shaheed Ahmed, supplementary charge sheet was against them. Later on accused Inam was arrested and supplementary charge sheet was filed against him. However, accused Hasan Hussain was declared proclaimed offender vide order dated 02.03.2016 and upon his arrest, supplementary charge sheet filed against him.
CHARGE
2. On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, vide order dated 28.09.2016, charge under sections 364A/342/120-B/395 IPC was framed against accused Javed, Liyakat, Ifran, Naseem, Illiyas, Abid, Muzakkir, SC No. 8652/2016 State Vs. Javed & Ors. Page No. 5 of 42 FIR No. 11/2015 PS Crime Branch Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2026.04.28 16:30:00 +0530 Shaheed Ahmed and Inam. Accused Liyakat, Abid and Inam were additionally charged under section 412 IPC and accused Javed was additionally charged under section 397 IPC read with section 395 IPC and 27 Arms Act. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 2.1 After arrest of accused Hassan Hussain, charge under section 364A/342/395/120-B IPC was framed against accused Hassan Hussain on 08.01.2020 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 2.2 Vide order dated 15.07.2025, additional charge under section 174- A IPC was framed against accused Hasan Hussain to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
2.3 Vide order dated 02.07.2022, accused Javed was declared proclaimed offender.
2.4 Proceedings against accused Muzakkir were abated vide order dated 10.03.2026.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. Thereafter, prosecution in support of its case have examined 22 witnesses in all.
DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED BY WITNESSES S. Name of Witness Exhibit number Description of documents No.
1. PW1 HC Mukesh Ex. PW1/A DD No. 22A
2. PW2 Jaymin Kamlesh Ex. PW2/A Arrest memo of accused Bhai Thakkar Javed Ex. PW2/B Personal search memo of accused Javed.
Ex. PW2/C Disclosure statement of SC No. 8652/2016 State Vs. Javed & Ors. Page No. 6 of 42 FIR No. 11/2015 PS Crime Branch Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2026.04.28 16:30:05 +0530 accused Javed. Ex. PW2/D Seizure memo of vehicle No. HR-27E-9242. Ex. PW2/E Site plan of the place where PW2 and PW3 were kept as captive. Ex. PW2/F Statement under section 164 CrPC of PW2 and PW3. 3. PW3 Rana Chintan Ex. PW3/A Site plan of the place where PW2 and PW3 were kept as captive. Ex. PW3/B Proceedings under section 164 CrPC. 4. PW4 Ashok Kumar Ex. PW4/A Copy of RC of vehicle No. Clerk SDM Office, HR-27E-9242 Nuh, Mewat 5. PW5 HC Resham - Took rukka to PS for Singh registration of FIR. 6. PW6 ASI Jai Prakash Ex. PW6/A Pointing out memo of house of accused Irfan at the instance of accused Liyakat Ex. PW6/B Seizure memo of mobile phone make Samsung Duos. Ex. PW6/C Arrest memo of accused Irfan Ex. PW6/D Arrest memo of accused Nasim Ex. PW6/E Personal search memo of accused Irfan Ex. PW6/F Personal search memo of accused Nasim Ex. PW6/G Disclosure statement of accused Irfan Ex. PW6/H Disclosure statement of accused Nasim Ex. P6/1 Mobile phone recovered at the instance of accused Liyakat. 7. PW7 Ct. Mohit Ex. PW7/A Disclosure statement of SC No. 8652/2016 State Vs. Javed & Ors. Page No. 7 of 42 FIR No. 11/2015 PS Crime Branch Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2026.04.28 16:30:13 +0530 accused Liyakat. Ex. PW7/B Arrest memo of accused Abid Ex. PW7/C Arrest memo of accused Illyas Ex. PW7/D Personal search memo of accused Abid Ex. PW7/E Personal search memo of accused Illyas Ex. PW7/F Seizure memo of wrist watch of Jaymin Thakkar. Ex. PW7/G Pointing out memo of of the house and room of accused Irfan at the instance of accused Irfan Ex. PW7/H Pointing out memo of of the house and room of accused Irfan at the instance of accused Nasim Ex. PW7/I Pointing out memo of of the house and room of accused Irfan at the instance of accused Abid Ex. PW7/J Pointing out memo of of the house and room of accused Irfan at the instance of accused Illyas. Ex. PW7/K Disclosure statement of accused Abid. Ex. PW7/L Disclosure statement of accused Illyas Ex. P7/1 Wrist watch make Titan 8. PW8 Ct. Rahul - Member of raiding team, who rescued the victims. 9. PW9 SI Kuldeep Ex. PW9/A FIR Singh, duty officer Ex. PW9/B Endorsement on rukka Ex. PW9/C Certificate under section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act. 10. PW10 Rajeev Ranjan, Ex. PW10/A Call details of mobile No. Nodal Officer, Tata 8866870659 from 01.02.2015 SC No. 8652/2016 State Vs. Javed & Ors. Page No. 8 of 42 FIR No. 11/2015 PS Crime Branch Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2026.04.28 16:30:19 +0530 Tele Services to 04.02.2015 issued in the name of Chintan B. Rana. Ex. PW10/B Call details of mobile No. 9033332553 from 01.02.2015 to 04.02.2015 issued in the name of Sailesh Kumar V Parmar.
Ex. PW10/C Certificate under section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW10/D Forwarded letter to IO.
11. PW11 Israr Babu, Ex. PW11/A Call details of mobile No. Alternate Nodal 9825092424 from 03.02.2015 Officer, Vodafone Idea to 04.02.2015 issued in the Ltd. name of Kamlesh Thakkar.
Ex. PW11/B Certificate under section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW11/C Call details of mobile No. 9825004040 from 03.02.2015 to 04.02.2015 issued in the name of Kamlesh Thakkar.
Ex. PW11/D Certificate under section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act.
12. PW12 SI Aas Mohd. Ex. PW12/A Pointing out memo of house and room of accused Irfan at the instance of accused Javed.
Ex. PW12/B Seizure memo of mobile
phone make Samsung
belonged to Rana Chintan.
Ex. PW12/C Site plan of place of recovery
of mobile phone
Ex. PW12/D Pointing out memo at the
instance of accused Inam.
Ex. PW13/ME-1 Mobile phone recovered at
the instance of accused Inam.
Ex. PW12/PX1 DD No. 5
Ex. PW12/PX2 DD No. 9
Ex. PW12/PX3 His statement qua execution
of process under section 83
CrPC against accused Hasan
recorded in the court of Ld.
SC No. 8652/2016 State Vs. Javed & Ors. Page No. 9 of 42
FIR No. 11/2015 PS Crime Branch
Digitally signed
by
DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2026.04.28
16:30:24 +0530
CMM, Patiala House Courts.
13. PW13 Illyas - Registered user of mobile No.
8059046580 and 8059048580
14. PW14 HC Salimuddin Ex. PW14/A Arrest memo of accused
Muzzakir
Ex. PW14/B Personal search memo of
accused Muzzakir.
Ex. PW14/C Disclosure statement of
accused Muzzakir.
Ex. PW14/D Pointing out memo of house
of accused Irfan at the
instance of accused Muzzakir.
Ex. PW14/E Interrogation report of
accused Inam.
Ex. PW14/F Arrest memo of accused Inam
Ex. PW14/G Disclosure statement of Inam.
15. PW15 Ami Jaymin - Wife of victim Jaymin
Thakkar Thakkar, who made complaint
to Crime Branch, Delhi.
16. PW16 Md. Haneef, Ex. PW16/A Superdarinama
owner of Tata Safari Ex. PW16/PX1 Notice under section 133 MV
No. HR-27E-9242 Act
17. PW17 ASI Rakesh - Arrested accused Liyakat in
Kumar District Palwal, Haryana.
18. PW18 Pawan Singh, Mark PW18/A Copy of ID proof
Nodal Officer Ex. PW18/B CDR of mobile No.
8059046580
Ex. PW18/C CDR of mobile No.
8059048580
Mark PW18/D CAF of No.7777956666
Mark PW18/E and Copy of ID proof
Mark PW18/F
Ex. PW18/G CDR of mobile No.
7777956666
Ex. PW18/H Certificate under section 65-B
of Indian Evidence Act
19. PW19 Inspector Ex. PW19/A Kalandra under section 41.2
Satvinder CrPC of accused Hasan
SC No. 8652/2016 State Vs. Javed & Ors. Page No. 10 of 42
FIR No. 11/2015 PS Crime Branch
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2026.04.28
16:30:29 +0530
Hussain
Ex. PW19/B Seizure memo of car bearing
No. HR-74B-4490
Ex. PW19/C Arrest memo of accused
Hasan Hussain
Ex. PW19/D Personal search memo of
accused Hasan Hussain.
20. PW20 HC Pradeep Ex. PW20/A Arrest memo of accused
Shaheed Ahmad
Ex. PW20/B Personal search memo of
accused Shaheed Ahmad.
Ex. PW20/C Disclosure statement of
accused Shaheed Ahmad
Ex. PW20/D Pointing out memo of house
of accused Irfan at the
instance of accused Shaheed
Ahmad.
21. PW21 SI Narinder Ex. PW21/A Application moved before Ld.
Sehrawat CMM for interrogation of
accused Mohd. Hasan
Hussain.
Ex. PW21/B Disclosure statement of
accused Mohd. Hasan
Hussain
Ex. PW21/C Arrest memo of accused
Mohd. Hasan Hussain
Ex. PW21/D Application for TIP
proceedings of accused
Mohd. Hasan Hussain.
Ex. PW21/E Copy of order with regard to
refusal of accused Mohd.
Hasan Hussain for TIP
proceedings.
22. PW22 Amit Kumar Ex. PW22/A Miscellaneous case file of
Tyagi, Assistant FIR No.11/2015 PS Crime
Ahlmad in the court of Branch regarding proceedings
Ld. CJM, Patiala under section 82/83 CrPC and
House Courts. order of Ld. CMM, Patiala
House Court regarding
declaration of Hasan Hussain
SC No. 8652/2016 State Vs. Javed & Ors. Page No. 11 of 42
FIR No. 11/2015 PS Crime Branch
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2026.04.28
16:30:34 +0530
as proclaimed offender.
Ex. PW22/B Order of declaration of
proclaimed offender of
accused Hasan dated
02.03.2016.
DOCUMENTS ADMITTED BY ACCUSED
S. No. Description of documents Exhibit Number
1. Statement under section 164 CrPC dated Ex. AD1(colly)
13.02.2015 of victims Jaymin Thakkar and
Rana Chintan recorded by the then Ld. MM
which are Ex. PW2/F and Ex. PW3/B.
2. TIP Parade proceedings of accused Hasan Already Ex. PW21/E
Hussain
FORMAL WITNESSES
4. PW1 HC Mukesh deposed that on 03.02.2015 at about 06:15 PM, Ami Jaymin Thakkar gave an information to duty officer regarding kidnapping of his husband Jaymin Thakkar and ransom of Rs. 10 lakhs on telephone. He further deposed that he recorded DD No. 22A which is Ex. PW1/A and information regarding DD was sent to SI Sanjay Kumar for inquiry on the instructions of senior police officers.
4.1 He was again examined on 05.03.2020 i.e., after arrest of accused Hassan Hussain.
5. PW4 Ashok Kumar, Clerk SDM Office, Nuh, Mewat, proved RC of vehicle No. HR-27E-9242 registered in the name of Hanif as Ex. PW4/A. 5.1 Re-examined on 06.03.2020 after arrest of accused Hasan Hussain.
SC No. 8652/2016 State Vs. Javed & Ors. Page No. 12 of 42
FIR No. 11/2015 PS Crime Branch
Digitally signed by
DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA
RANA
RANA Date: 2026.04.28
16:30:39 +0530
6. PW5 HC Resham Singh deposed that on 03.02.2015, at about 09:00 PM, SI Sanjeev Yadav handed over a rukka to him. He went to PS Crime Branch, Malviya Nagar and handed over the rukka to duty officer. He further deposed that after registration of FIR, duty officer handed over computerized copy of FIR and original rukka to him and he took the same to ISC Crime branch and handed over the same to SI Sanjeev.
7. PW9 SI Kuldeep Singh, being duty officer, he proved FIR which Ex. PW9/A, endorsement on rukka which is Ex. PW9/B and certificate under section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex. PW9/C. 7.1 He was again examined after arrest of accused Hasan Hussain and he deposed on the lines of his previous deposition.
8. PW10 Rajeev Ranjan, Nodal Officer, Tata Tele Services Ltd. proved certified copy of customer application form of mobile No. 8866870659 issued in the name of Chintan B. Rana alongwith election I card as Mark PW10/A and certified copy of call details from 01.02.2015 to 04.02.2015 which is Ex. PW10/A. 8.1 He further proved certified copy of customer application form of mobile no. 9033332553 issued in the name of Sailesh Kumar V Parmar alongwith election I card as Mark PW10/B and certified copy of call details from 01.02.2015 to 04.02.2015 which is Ex. PW10/B. He also proved certificate under section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex. PW10/C and letter forwarded to IO which is Ex. PW10/D.
9. PW11 Israr Babu, Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone Idea Ltd. proved certified copy of customer application form alongwith copy of driving license of mobile No. 9825092424 issued in the name of Kamlesh Thakkar as SC No. 8652/2016 State Vs. Javed & Ors. Page No. 13 of 42 FIR No. 11/2015 PS Crime Branch Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2026.04.28 16:30:43 +0530 Mark PW11/A, certified copy of call details from 03.02.2015 to 04.02.2015 as Ex. PW11/A and certificate under section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW11/B. 9.1 He further proved certified copy of customer application form alongwith copy of driving license of mobile No. 9825004050 issued in the name of Kamlesh Thakkar as Ex. PW11/B, certified copy of call details from 03.02.2015 to 04.02.2015 as Ex. PW11/C and certificate under section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW11/D.
10. PW13 Ilyas deposed that he never used mobile phone. Neither he or his family member were having any mobile phone. He further deposed that he never got issued mobile phone in his name and customer application forms Mark PW13/A and Mark PW13/B were not having his photographs. He further deposed that he did not know as to who had got issued SIM of mobile No. 8059046580 and 8059048580 in his name.
11. PW15 Ami Jaymin Thakkar, who happens to be wife of Jaymin Thakkar, deposed that on 02.02.2015, his husband left Ahmedabad via train to Delhi. She further deposed that in the morning of 03.02.2015, she received a phone call from her husband that he alongwith his employee Chintan Rana had reached Delhi and people to whom he had to meet had come to receive him. She further deposed that in the afternoon, she received a phone call from his father in law, who informed that her husband had been kidnapped and a ransom demand had been made. She further deposed that she called the Crime Branch as her father in law the number and got recorded her complaint. 11.1 She further deposed that next day, she alongwith her brother came to Delhi and reached Crime Branch office where one official Sanjeev recorded SC No. 8652/2016 State Vs. Javed & Ors. Page No. 14 of 42 FIR No. 11/2015 PS Crime Branch Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.04.28 16:30:49 +0530 her statement. She further deposed that in the evening, her husband was rescued from the area of Chandni Chowk where the payment of ransom was scheduled to be made. She further deposed that at that time her husband was having two mobile phones one having No. 9825092424 and second was 7777956666 and she was having mobile phone No. 9825004050.
12. PW16 Md. Haneef, who is owner of vehicle i.e., Tata Safari car No. HR 27E 9242, deposed that on 02.02.2015 the vehicle was with him and nobody had taken the vehicle from him till the time police came and took the possession of the vehicle. He further deposed that later on the police called him in the police station and obtained his signature on blank paper and also made him to write something on it. He further deposed that the said vehicle got released by him on superdari vide superdarinama which is Ex. PW16/A. 12.1 During cross examination done on behalf of State, he proved notice under section 133 MV Act as Ex. PW16/PX1.
13. PW17 ASI Rakesh Kumar deposed that on 04.04.2015, he was posted in Police Station Hathin, District Palwal, Haryana. He further deposed that they arrested accused Liyakat against whom NBW was issued in FIR No. 11/2015 PS Crime Branch Delhi and he was produced before concerned Judicial Magistrate of area of PS Hathin. He further deposed that the information regarding arrest of accused Liyakat was sent to concerned IO of FIR No. 11/2015 PS Crime Branch.
14. PW18 Pawan Singh, Nodal Officer, Vodafone Idea Ltd. proved CDR of mobile No. 8059046580 as Ex. PW18/B, CDR of mobile No. 8059048580 as Ex. PW18/C and proved copy of ID proof as Mark PW18/A. SC No. 8652/2016 State Vs. Javed & Ors. Page No. 15 of 42 FIR No. 11/2015 PS Crime Branch Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.04.28 16:30:52 +0530 14.1 He further proved CAF of mobile No. 7777956666 from 03.02.2015 to 04.02.2015 as Mark PW18/D, copy of ID proof as Mark PW18/E and Ex. PW18/F, CDR from the period 03.02.2015 to 04.02.2015 as Ex. PW18/G and certificate under section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.
PW18/H.
15. PW22 Amit Kumar Tyagi, Assistant Ahlmad in the court of Ld. CJM, Patiala House Courts proved miscellaneous case file of FIR No.11/2015 PS Crime Branch State Vs. Hasan regarding 82 CrPC and 83 CrPC proceedings and order of Ld. CMM, Patiala House Courts regarding proclaimed offender declaration of accused Hasan as Ex. PW22/A and order of declaration of Proclaimed Offender of accused Hasan dated 02.03.2016 as Ex. PW22/A1.
MATERIAL WITNESSES
16. PW2 Jaymin Kamlesh Bhai Thakkar, who happens to be victim, deposed that he was dealing in the business of aluminum scrap and was having a website in the name of rginternationalgroup.com and said website also bears his telephone number i.e., 9825092424. He further deposed that in the month of 2015, he received a call on his said mobile number from the mobile phone which started from 80. The caller told him that he was having the aluminum scrap of 6063 and he further told him that he was interested in purchasing the material on the cheaper rate than the rate quoted by him and further told him that he could get him purchased the material in a heavy quantity. The said order sent in pictures of articles on his mobile phone on WhatsApp. He further deposed that the conversation took place for 2-3 days and price of the said material was fixed. He further deposed that he told them that he would come to SC No. 8652/2016 State Vs. Javed & Ors. Page No. 16 of 42 FIR No. 11/2015 PS Crime Branch Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.04.28 16:30:58 +0530 his place and after getting the articles, he would give the payment through LC. He further deposed that he came to Delhi by train with his employee Chintan Bhupender Kumar Rana and prior to leaving the place, the caller told him that he would sent the vehicle at New Delhi Railway Station in order to pick him from there.
16.1 He further deposed that in the morning at about 07:30 AM, he alongwith his employee de-boarded the train at New Delhi Railway Station where one person was having a board of his name. He contacted him and that person told him that the vehicle was parked outside the station. He further deposed that there were two persons in the vehicle, whose number he did not remember. The said persons took them in the aforesaid vehicle in order to show the material at their office/factory. He further deposed that after the said persons took them to a village and in the village they took them in a house and they were told that they had been kidnapped and asked them to make a call to their house and to ask his family members to deliver Rs. 1 crore to them. He further deposed that an argument took place between them and 7-8 other persons also reached in the room and all of them gave beatings to him as well as to Rana Chintan and also abused them.
16.2 He further deposed that one person had asked him to call his home and to ask his family members to deliver Rs. 10 lakhs to them. Accordingly, he called his father, who was residing in London and told about the incident. He further deposed that his mother was in India and he also called her and told the facts and family members assured that they would arrange the money on very next day. He further deposed that one of the accused told him to tell his family members to arrange the money and to deliver the same to Madhav Magan Angaria and also asked them to give a number of currency notes of Rs. 10/- by showing the same they would take money.
SC No. 8652/2016 State Vs. Javed & Ors. Page No. 17 of 42 FIR No. 11/2015 PS Crime Branch Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.04.28 16:31:02 +0530 16.3 He further deposed that on next day, accused persons tied their face from the cloth and brought them to Delhi. When the cloth of the face was removed, they came to know that they were in Chandni Chowk, Delhi. He further deposed that police also reached there, they were rescued and were taken to police station. He further deposed that in the police station, they came to know that someone had been apprehended by the police officials and asked them to identify the said person. He further deposed that he had not identified the said person as he had never seen him and his signatures were obtained by the police on some blank papers.
16.4 During cross examination done on behalf of State, he admitted that about 15 days prior to 02.02.2015, he received the call from the mobile phone bearing No. 8059048580 and it might be that caller told his name as Rajender. He stated that it might be that the said person told him that there was a guest house of his company in Delhi. He admitted that they had left Ahmedabad on 02.02.2015 and reached Delhi at about 11:00 AM on 03.02.2015 by train. He admitted that he received a call from other number and caller told him that he was standing towards Kashmere Gate in order to pick them. He was not sure if the vehicle No. HR-27E-9242 make Safari of white colour came to pick them outside Old Delhi Railway Station. He was not sure if four persons were sitting in the aforesaid vehicle. 16.5 He denied that accused Javed, Inam, Illiyas and Irfan were sitting the said vehicle. He further denied that accused Javed, who was sitting beside him put the pistol type weapon on his body and threatened "chup chap bathey raho, hum tumhe apne sath apne gaon le ja rahe hai" . He admitted that prior to boarding the vehicle, he called his wife and told her that he had reached Delhi and concerned person had met him. He admitted that they were taken to a village in the vehicle where they reached in 2-2½ hours after leaving the Delhi SC No. 8652/2016 State Vs. Javed & Ors. Page No. 18 of 42 FIR No. 11/2015 PS Crime Branch Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.04.28 16:31:07 +0530 Railway Station. He further admitted that they were confined in a room and some persons also reached over there. He further admitted that he had called his father on 03.02.2015 and asked him to deliver Rs. 10 lakhs on the instructions of accused persons. He further admitted that accused persons had shown them pistol and threatened them if they would not receive Rs. 10 lakhs they would kill them. He further admitted that accused persons snatched one mobile phone make iphone 6 having SIM 9825092424, Grand 2 Samsung having SIM No. 7817868786 and 9033332553 and one wrist watch of Titan. He admitted that under the pressure of accused persons, he had called to his father many a times in order to arrange Rs. 10 lakhs and told accused persons that his father was making arrangement of Rs. 10 lakhs through one Madhav Magan Angaria, however, he denied that he called his father under pressure of accused Javed and his accomplices.
16.6 He stated that their faces were covered in the room. He denied that accused Javed, Inam, Illiyas and Irfan took him and Rana Chintan in the same Safari vehicle to Delhi. He stated that they were rescued by police. He denied that he had identified accused Javed before the police to be the person, who alongwith Inam, Illiyas and Irfan took him and Rana Chintan to Delhi from the village. He admitted his signatures on Ex. PW2/A i.e., arrest memo of accused Javed, Ex. PW2/B i.e., personal search memo of accused Javed, Ex. PW2/C i.e., disclosure statement of accused Javed and Ex. PW2/D i.e., seizure memo of vehicle No. HR-27E-9242. He stated that the vehicle in which he was taken to Delhi was not taken into police possession in his presence. 16.7 He could not remember if on 06.02.2015, he alongwith Rana Chintan went to Village Tirwara, District Mewat with police officials of Crime Branch and accused Javed took them to that village and accused Javed identified the house of accused Irfan. He could not tell if he had identified the SC No. 8652/2016 State Vs. Javed & Ors. Page No. 19 of 42 FIR No. 11/2015 PS Crime Branch Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.04.28 16:31:14 +0530 house and room where he alongwith Rana Chintan were confined and were beaten and the ransom was demanded. He admitted his signature on Ex. PW2/E i.e., site plan of place where he and Rana Chintan were kept. He also admitted his signature on Ex. PW2/F i.e., his statement under section 164 CrPC and statement of Rana Chintan.
16.8 He admitted that he stated that name of accused Javed, who alongwith three persons took them to Chandni Chowk as the name of Javed was told to him by the police persons. He stated that he had not stated to the police that accused Javed was sitting just adjacent to him and he put a pistol type weapon and threatened him. He denied that he stated to the police that accused Javed alongwith his co-accused took them in a Safari vehicle in a village. He denied that he stated to police that accused Javed had asked to make a call to his family members and to ask them to send Rs. 10 lakhs in order to release them. He further denied that he had stated to police that accused Javed, Inam, Illyas and Irfan took him and Rana Chintan to Delhi in a same Safari vehicle. He further denied that he had stated to police that accused Javed was apprehended by the police. He had not stated the name of anyone as he did not know the accused persons by their name. 16.9 He admitted that vehicle bearing No. HR 27E 9242 was taken by the police in possession and he had signed the same. He denied that on 06.02.2015, he alongwith police officials and accused Javed went to Chanakya Puri went to Village Tilwara District Mewat in personal vehicle. He denied that accused Javed had identified a room where he and Rana Chintan were kept and accused persons gave beatings to them and had asked for ransom. 16.10 He admitted that on 20.04.2015, he went to Tihar Jail and identified accused Liyakat, however, he identified him at the instance of police officials. He further denied that he had stated to police that on 03.02.2015, SC No. 8652/2016 State Vs. Javed & Ors. Page No. 20 of 42 FIR No. 11/2015 PS Crime Branch Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2026.04.28 16:31:19 +0530 accused Javed, Inam, Illyas and Saheed kidnapped him and his employee Rana Chintan on the pointing out of pistol and took them at Village Tirwana at the house of accused Irfan where accused Irfan was already present. He further denied that on calling of Javed, accused Liyakat, Abid, Naseem, Muzzakir, Irfan and Hasan came in the house of Irfan and threatened them and gave beatings to him and Rana Chintan. He further denied that all the said accused persons by showing the pistol and threatening them, took two mobile phones, one wrist watch, one laptop with its bag, one cloth bag from him and took one mobile from his employee Rana Chintan.
16.11 He admitted that his mobile phone make Samsung was having SIM No. 7777956666 in his name and SIM No. 9033332553 in the name of his employee Shailesh Kumar. He further admitted that there was SIM of number 9825092424 in his other mobile phone make iphone 6 was in the name of his father. He denied that his mobile phone was taken by accused Liyakat. He further denied that he used to call on the mobile phone of accused Javed bearing No. 8059048580 and 8059046850 from his phone bearing No. 9825092424 as he did not remember on which he used to call. He denied that his mobile phone iphone 6 of white colour was snatched by accused Javed and his accomplice. He further denied that on 17.07.2015, he identified accused Irfan, Naseem, Illyas, Abid, Muzzakir and Saheed when they were produced before the court to be the person, who alongwith their accomplice had kidnapped him and his employee Rana Chintan and made a ransom call of Rs. 10 lakhs. He further denied that on 06.04.2015, he alongwith his employee Rana Chintan had come to Patiala House Court and identified accused Inam as the person, who alongwith his accomplice kidnapped him and his employee and made a ransom call. He further denied that all the accused persons were involved in his kidnapping and they made a ransom call to his father. He SC No. 8652/2016 State Vs. Javed & Ors. Page No. 21 of 42 FIR No. 11/2015 PS Crime Branch Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.04.28 16:31:24 +0530 further denied that accused Javed was arrested by the police in his presence who alongwith Inam, Illyas and Saheed had taken him and Rana Chintan to Delhi in order to collect ransom amount. He further denied that he identified accused Liyakat, Naseem, Abid and Muzzakir before the court. 16.12 After arrest of accused Hasan Hussain, prosecution has failed to re-examine this witness as he has not appeared in witness box.
17. PW3 Rana Chintan, who accompanied the victim at the time of incident and deposed on the lines of PW2 Jaymin Kamlesh Bhai Thakkar in his examination.
17.1 He admitted his signature on Ex. PW3/A i.e., site plan of place where he and Jaymin were kept by the accused persons and Ex. PW3/B i.e., proceedings under section 164 CrPC.
17.2 He was again examined after arrest of accused Hasan and stated that he had already given his testimony on 04.04.2018 and he did not want to say anything else except his earlier testimony. 17.3 He was cross examined on behalf of State wherein he stated that he had seen the person pointed out towards him. He denied that accused, who was pointed was amongst one of the person, who met them in the house where they were taken. He further denied that accused Hasan alongwith other accused persons had threatened them and also snatched their mobile phones, laptop, wrist watch and cloth bag.
WITNESSES OF INVESTIGATION
18. PW6 ASI Jai Prakash deposed that on 24.04.2015,at about 05:00 AM, he alongwith SI Aas Mohd. SI Braham Dev, Ct. Salimuddin, Ct. Jitender, SC No. 8652/2016 State Vs. Javed & Ors. Page No. 22 of 42 FIR No. 11/2015 PS Crime Branch Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.04.28 16:31:29 +0530 Ct. Surender, Ct. Sudhir, Ct. Hawa Singh, Ct. Anil, Ct. Ajay, Ct. Jagbir and Ct. Mohit left the office of ISC with accused Liyakat and went to Village Roopdaka, District Mewat in two vehicles in search of other accused persons namely Inam, Illyas, Sahil, Irfan, Abid, Hasan, Nasim and Mujahid after taking help of local police.
18.1 He further deposed that at the instance of accused Liyakat, they went to house of Irfan and IO prepared pointing out memo of the house of accused Irfan which is Ex. PW6/A. He further deposed that accused Liyakat took out a mobile phone make Samsung Duos from the iron almirah which was lying in a room and disclosed that the said mobile phone was robbed from Jaimin Thakkar and same was seized under section 102 CrPC vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW6/B. He further deposed that SI Aas Mohd. served a notice under section 160 CrPC upon Honey, owner of the vehicle Safari which was used in the crime.
18.2 He further deposed that on 23.04.2015 SI Aas Mohd. received an information that two persons involved in this case would be coming to Delhi.
He further deposed that on receipt of information, a raiding party was constituted by SI Aas Mohd. and they left their office and reached at Kalindi Kunj. He further deposed that at about 07:00 AM, accused Irfan and Nasim were apprehended and taken to office. He further deposed that after interrogation, IO arrested accused Nasim and Irfan vide arrest memos which are Ex. PW6/C and Ex. PW6/D, their personal search was conducted vide personal search memos which are Ex. PW6/E and Ex. PW6/F and their disclosure statements were recorded which are Ex. PW6/G and Ex. PW6/H. He further deposed that accused Nasim and Irfan were produced before the court where they refused to participate in the judicial TIP proceedings and their two days police custody was obtained. He admitted that on 22.04.2015, he SC No. 8652/2016 State Vs. Javed & Ors. Page No. 23 of 42 FIR No. 11/2015 PS Crime Branch Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.04.28 16:31:35 +0530 alongwith police party and accused Liyakat had gone to District Mewat, Village Roopdaka. He further admitted that inadvertently he mentioned date as 24.04.2015 instead of 22.04.2015.
18.3 He identified mobile phone make Samsung recovered at the instance of accused Liyakat as Ex. P6/1.
18.4 During cross examination done on behalf of accused Javed, Muzakir, Liyakat, Irfan, Illyas and Abid, he stated that accused Irfan and Nasim were apprehended on 24.04.2015 at about 07:00 AM from red light of Kalandi Kunj on the pointing out of secret informer. He stated that both accused persons were on foot and were standing at the time of their apprehension. He denied all the suggestions put forth on behalf of accused persons.
18.5 He was again examined after arrest of accused Hassan Hussain and he deposed on the lines of his earlier statement.
19. PW7 Ct. Mohit deposed that on 21.04.2015, he alongwith SI Sanjeev, Ct. Surender and Ct. Jitender came to Paitala House Courts where two days police custody of accused Liyakat was obtained. He further deposed that accused Liyakat was taken to office of Crime Branch where SI Sanjeev interrogated him and recorded his disclosure statement which is Ex. PW7/A.
19.1 He further deposed that on 24.04.2015, he again joined the investigation with SI Sanjeev, SI Aas Mohd., SI Brahm Dev, Ct. Jasbir, Ct. Surender, Ct. Sudhir, Ct. Pradeep and Ct. Anil as SI Sanjeev prepared a raiding team. Raiding team alongwith accused Irfan and Nasim went to Village Roopdaka. He further deposed that they stayed at some distance prior to village Roopdaka and SI Sanjeev deputed a secret informer for search of accused Inam, Illyas and Abid and they took their position near the village. He SC No. 8652/2016 State Vs. Javed & Ors. Page No. 24 of 42 FIR No. 11/2015 PS Crime Branch Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.04.28 16:31:40 +0530 further deposed that at about 03:00 PM, secret informer informed that accused Abid and Illyas had been seen by them at the house of Abid. Thereafter, they went to house of Abid alongwith accused Irfan, Nasim and secret informer where at the instance of secret informer, accused Illyas and Abid were apprehended. He further deposed that IO interrogated accused Illyas and Abid and they accepted their guilt in kidnapping of Jaymin Thakkar and Rana Chintan.
19.2 He further deposed that after interrogation, accused Abid and Illyas were arrested vide arrest memos which are Ex. PW7/B and Ex. PW7/C, their personal search was conducted vide personal search memos which are Ex.
PW7/D and Ex. PW7/E. He further deposed that accused Abid took out a wrist watch from an almirah which was lying in the room and told that the said watch belonged to complainant Jaymin Thakkar. The wrist watch was seized vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW7/F. 19.3 He further deposed that they went to house of accused Nasim and search was made, however, nothing incriminating was found there. Thereafter, raiding team alongwith accused Irfan, Nasim, Abid and Illyas went to Village Triwada where all accused persons pointed out the house and room of accused Irfan where complainant Jaymin Thakkar and Rana Chintan were kept, vide pointing out memos which are Ex. PW7/G, Ex. PW7/H, Ex. PW7/I and Ex. PW7/J. He further deposed that they also searched house of accused Irfan but nothing incriminating was found there. He further deposed that disclosure statement of accused Abid and Illyas were recorded which are Ex. PW7/K and Ex. PW7/L. He exhibited wrist watch make Titan as Ex. P7/1. 19.4 During cross examination done on behalf of accused Javed, Muzakir, Liyakat, Irfan, Illyas and Abid that disclosure statement of accused Liyakat was recorded in the court. He denied all the suggestions put forth on SC No. 8652/2016 State Vs. Javed & Ors. Page No. 25 of 42 FIR No. 11/2015 PS Crime Branch Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2026.04.28 16:31:45 +0530 behalf of accused persons.
20. PW8 Ct. Rahul deposed that on 04.02.2015 at about 01:45 PM when he was present in the office of Crime Branch, SI Sanjeev called him, SI Ravinder, SI Sunil, HC Kartar, HC Santraj, HC Dinesh, HC Yatender and Ct. Ravi and informed that he had received an information that the abductors, who had abducted Jaymin Thakkar and Rana Chintan would be coming at 4747, First Floor, Cloth Market, Laxmi Market, Fatehpuri, Delhi. SI Sanjeev prepared a raiding party consisting of the officers. 20.1 He further deposed that they left the office of Crime Branch at about 02:00 PM and reached at Laxmi Market at about 02:30 PM. He further deposed that at about 03:00 PM, one Tata Safari vehicle came from the side of Old Delhi Railway Station and was going towards Sadar Market. He further deposed that secret informer pointed out towards the vehicle as the vehicle belonged to abductors. He further deposed that aforesaid vehicle was stopped at a distance of about 50 meter from them and on seeing them, three persons came down and ran away in the opposite directions and they surrounded the vehicle.
20.2 He further deposed that Jaymin Thakkar and Rana Chintan were found sitting in the vehicle and besides them, accused Javed was also found present in the vehicle and he was apprehended. He further deposed that they tried to search for the persons, who had ran away from the spot but they could not be traced despite their best efforts. He further deposed that thereafter, they alongwith Tata Safari, both victims and accused Javed came to the office where SI Sanjeev recorded statement of victims Jaymin Thakkar and Rana Chintan. He further deposed that vehicle bearing No. HR 27E 9242 was seized, accused Javed was arrested and his disclosure statement was recorded.
SC No. 8652/2016 State Vs. Javed & Ors. Page No. 26 of 42
FIR No. 11/2015 PS Crime Branch
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2026.04.28
16:31:51 +0530
20.3 During cross examination done on behalf of accused persons, he
stated that vehicle i.e., Safari was stopped by giving a signal. No public person joined the investigation at that time. He could not tell the number of persons, who had run away from the vehicle. He denied all the suggestions put forth on behalf of accused persons.
21. PW12 SI Aas Mohd. being the member of raiding team, deposed on the lines of PW6 ASI Jai Prakash and PW7 Ct. Mohit. 21.1 He proved pointing out memo of the house of accused Irfan where Jaymin Thakar and Rana Chintan were confined as prepared at the instance of accused Javed as Ex. PW12/A. 21.2 In addition, he deposed that process under section 83 CrPC against accused Inam and Hasan were got issued vide order dated 10.12.2015. He further deposed that they came to know that accused Inam was arrested vide FIR No. 4396/2015 u/sec 25 Arms Act and FIR No. 440/15 U/sec 411/414 IPC by police of PS Barsana, District Mathura and he was running in judicial custody in Mathura Jail. He further deposed that on 10.02.2016, accused Inam was produced before the court where SI Sanjeev arrested him and his three days police custody was obtained.
21.3 He further deposed that on 11.02.2016, he alongwith ASI Satender, HC Vinod, HC Ajeet, Ct. Salimuddin, Ct. Jasbir and Ct. Sudhir went to PS Chopanki, District Alwar, Rajasthan with accused Inam. He further deposed that accused Inam took them to the house of his brother in law Sagir and pointed out the house and told that during the period, when he was absconding, he stayed in the said house. Accused Inam took out a Samsung black colour mobile phone from an almirah and told that he took the said mobile phone from Rana Chintan. The said mobile phone was seized vide SC No. 8652/2016 State Vs. Javed & Ors. Page No. 27 of 42 FIR No. 11/2015 PS Crime Branch Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2026.04.28 16:31:56 +0530 seizure memo which is Ex. PW12/B and site plan of the place of recovery was prepared which is Ex. PW12/C. He further deposed that accused Inam took them to the house of accused Irfan at Village Tirwara where Jaymin Thakkar and Rana Chintan were kept by them and pointing out memo in this regard was prepared which is Ex. PW12/D. He proved mobile phone of Rana Chintan as Ex. PW13/ME-1.
21.4 During cross examination done on behalf of accused Javed, Muzakkir and Naseem, he admitted that neither the victims nor any incriminating articles were recovered at that time. He denied that Inspector Sanjeev instructed him to bring someone so that a case could be worked out. He further denied that accused Javed was apprehended from his house on the instructions of Inspector Sanjeev and was brought in the office and later on he was falsely implicated in this case.
21.5 During cross examination done on behalf of accused Liyakat, he denied that no mobile was recovered at the instance of accused Liyakat and recovery of mobile phone was planted upon accused Liyakat in order to work out the case.
21.6 During cross examination done on behalf of accused Inam, he denied that no mobile was recovered at the instance of accused Inam and recovery was planted upon him.
21.7 Accused Irfan, Illiyas, Abid and Shahid Ahmed, adopted the cross examination done on behalf of above accused persons. 21.8 PW12 Retd. SI Aas Mohd. further examined after arrest of accused Hasan Hussain and during examination he deposed that process under section 83 CrPC issued against accused Hasan Hussain s/o Majid r/o Village Gubhrandi Police Station Punhana, District Mewat, Haryana was marked to him for its execution. He further deposed that on 12.12.2015, he visited the SC No. 8652/2016 State Vs. Javed & Ors. Page No. 28 of 42 FIR No. 11/2015 PS Crime Branch Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.04.28 16:32:04 +0530 house of accused Hasan but none was found there. The chowkidar of the village had informed that accused had left the address. He further deposed that after making enquiry it was revealed that there was no movable or immovable property in the name of accused. He proved DD No. 5 as Ex. PW12/PX1 vide which he left police station for execution of process, DD No. 9 as Ex. PW12/PX2 vide which he returned to police station and his statement was recorded before Ld. CMM as Ex. PW12/PX3.
21.9 During cross examination done on behalf of accused Hasan Hussain, he stated that no police official of PS Punhana accompanied him for execution of process under section 83 CrPC. He denied all the suggestions put forth on behalf of accused.
22. PW14 HC Salimuddin deposed that on 06.02.2015, he alongwith SI Sanjeev, SI Aas Mohd., Ct. Jasvir, Ct. Jitender, Ct. Pradeep, Ct. Mohit, Ct.
Pratap, Jaymin Thakkar, Rana Chintan and accused Javed went to Village Tirwara, District Mewat, Haryana. He further deposed that accused Javed took them to the house of Irfan and pointed out the room where complainant and Jaymin Thakkar and Rana Chintan were kept. Pointing out memo were also prepared at the instance of both the victims.
22.1 He further deposed that on 29.05.2015, he again joined the investigation and SI Sanjeev called him and other staff in his room and informed that Ct. Subhash informed him that accused Muzzakir wanted in this case would be coming to Sarai Kale Khan Bus Stand, Delhi at about 07:00 PM to meet someone. He further deposed that a raiding party was constituted comprising of him, SI Sanjeev, SI Aas Mohd. Ct. Brahamdev, Ct. Jasvir, Ct. Jitender, Ct. Surender, Ct. Sudhir and Ct. Anil and left the office alongwith secret informer at about 05:00 PM and reached at Sarai Kale Khan Bus Stand SC No. 8652/2016 State Vs. Javed & Ors. Page No. 29 of 42 FIR No. 11/2015 PS Crime Branch Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2026.04.28 16:32:09 +0530 at about 05:30 PM. He further deposed that at about 07:15 PM, accused Muzzakir was seen coming outside Sarai Kale Khan Bus Stand and on pointing out of secret informer, he was apprehended when he was trying to run away inside the bus stand. He further deposed that after interrogation, accused Muzzakir was arrested vide arrest memo which is Ex. PW14/A, his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo which is Ex. PW14/B and his disclosure statement was recorded which is Ex. PW14/C. He further disclosed that accused disclosed that he could get recovered the laptop which had come in his share and further disclosed that he had given the said laptop to his friend Sakir.
22.2 He further deposed that on 06.06.2015, he alongwith SI Sanjeev, SI Aas Mohd. Ct. Jai Prakash, Ct. Jasbir and Ct. Devender went to Patiala House Court where accused Muzzakir was produced before concerned court and was taken on police remand. He further deposed that police team alongwith accused Muzzakir went to police station Punhana and all the facts were told to SHO PS Punhana. He further deposed that thereafter, they alongwith accused Muzzakir and local police staff went to house of accused Mohd. Saheed, however, he did not found the house and family members and public persons were informed regarding issuance of non bailable warrants against accused Mohd. Saheed. He further deposed that thereafter, they went to house of accused Hasan, however, he was not found there and the ladies were informed regarding issuance of NBW against accused Hasan. 22.3 He further deposed that later on they went to Village Tirwara, the native village of accused Irfan where accused Muzzakir pointed out the place where Jayamine Thakkar and Rana Chintan were kept vide pointing out memo which is Ex. PW14/D. Thereafter, they went to Village Rawalki Mubarakpur i.e., native village of accused Muzzakir, however, nothing incriminating was SC No. 8652/2016 State Vs. Javed & Ors. Page No. 30 of 42 FIR No. 11/2015 PS Crime Branch Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.04.28 16:32:15 +0530 found there. He further deposed that thereafter, they went to PS Bhain and informed all the facts to SHO and requested him to provide help for arrest of accused Mohd. Inam. He further deposed that thereafter, they alongwith local police officials went to Village Roopdaka in search of accused Mohd. Inam but he was not found there. Thereafter, they went to Village Shikarpur, District Mewat in search of Sakir for recovery of laptop, however, he was not found there.
22.4 He further deposed that on 10.02.2016, he alongwith Inspector Sanjeev, SI Aas Mohd., Ct. Jasvir, Ct. Surender, Ct. Sudhir and Ct. Jai Prakash went to Patiala House Court as accused Inam was to produced in the court of Ld. CMM from Mathura Jail. He further deposed that after obtaining permission from Ld. CMM, accused Inam was interrogated vide interrogation report which is Ex. PW14/E, he was arrested vide arrest memo which is Ex.
PW14/F and his disclosure statement was recorded which is Ex. PW14/G. He further deposed that accused disclosed about his involvement in the present case and that he could get recovered mobile phone which had come in his share from the house of brother in law Sagir. He further deposed that accused refused to participate in TIP proceedings.
22.5 He further deposed that on 11.02.2016 on the instructions of Inspector Sanjeev, he alongwith SI Aas Mohd., ASI Satender, HC Vinod, HC Ajeet, Ct. Jasbir and Ct. Sudhir went to PS Chopanki, District Alwar alongwith accused Inam. He further deposed that accused Inam took them to house of his brother in law Sagir and told that during absconding period, he stayed in aforesaid house. He further deposed that accused Inam took out a Samsung black colour mobile phone from the back side of an iron almirah belonging to victim Rana Chintan. Mobile phone was seized and site plan of place of recovery was also prepared by SI Aas Mohd. He further deposed that SC No. 8652/2016 State Vs. Javed & Ors. Page No. 31 of 42 FIR No. 11/2015 PS Crime Branch Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2026.04.28 16:32:21 +0530 thereafter, they went to Village Tiwara, accused Inam pointed out the house of accused Mohd. Irfan.
22.6 During cross examination done on behalf of accused persons, he admitted that victims were not found in Village Tirwara. He stated that accused Javed was not arrested by their team and he was arrested by other team. He denied that they picked up accused Javed from his house and he was brought to their office at Chankyapuri. He stated that no bus ticket was found in personal search of accused Muzzakir. He denied that no bus ticket was found from the possession of accused Muzzakir as he was not arrested from Sarai Kale Khan Bus Stand. He stated that they reached Village Tirwara at about 03:00-03:15 PM. No local person had joined the investigation in Village Tirwara. The Sarpanch or the Nambardars of the said village were called to join the investigation. He stated that no public person joined the investigation at the time of preparing pointing out memo. He stated that arrest memo of accused Inam was prepared in the court and he was produced in unmuffled face from Mathura Jail. He denied all the suggestions put forth on behalf of accused persons.
22.7 PW14 HC Salimuddin was again recalled for examination after arrest of accused Hasan Hussain and he deposed on the lines of his earlier deposition.
22.8 During cross examination done on behalf of accused Hasan Hussain, he denied that Muzzakir was not arrested in his presence and no disclosure of accused was recorded in his presence.
23. PW19 Inspector Satvinder deposed that in the intervening night of 28-29.06.2019, accused Hasan Hussain was apprehended while driving a Swift Car bearing No. HR 74B 4490 in front of Jaipur Golden Hospital at Rohini, SC No. 8652/2016 State Vs. Javed & Ors. Page No. 32 of 42 FIR No. 11/2015 PS Crime Branch Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.04.28 16:32:28 +0530 Sector-3, Delhi. He was arrested in kalandara under section 41.1 CrPC which is Ex. PW19/A, his car was seized vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW19/B. He further deposed that accused Hasan Hussain was arrested vide arrest memo which is Ex. PW19/C and his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo which is Ex. PW19/D.
24. PW20 HC Pradeep deposed that on 25.06.2015, IO SI Sanjeev Kumar called him, SI Aas Mohd., Ct. Surender and Ct. Sudhir in his office and shared the secret information with them that accused Shaheed Ahmed would come near Nirankari College, Sohna to meet his brother. He further deposed that SI Sanjeev Kumar shared the information with senior officer and on the directions of senior officers, prepared the raiding party. He further deposed that thereafter, they went to Nirankari College at about 03:30 PM and waited for accused. He further deposed that after about 10-15 minutes, secret informer pointed out towards two persons, who were standing in front of Nirankari College, Sohna and pointed out towards accused Shaheed Ahmad, who was wearing violet colour shirt. He further deposed that accused Shaheed Ahmad was apprehended when he was trying to flee away from there. He further deposed that accused was interrogated and during interrogation, he confessed his involved in the present case. Accused was arrested vide arrest memo which is Ex. PW20/A, his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo which is Ex. PW20/B and his disclosure statement was recorded which is Ex. PW20/C. He further deposed that thereafter, accused Shaheed Ahmed led the police team to his native village, however, nothing was recovered from there related to present case. Thereafter, accused led them to the house of accused Irfan and pointed out the place where victim Jaymin Thakkar and Rana Chintan were kept vide pointing out memo which is Ex. PW20/D. SC No. 8652/2016 State Vs. Javed & Ors. Page No. 33 of 42 FIR No. 11/2015 PS Crime Branch Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.04.28 16:32:33 +0530
25. PW21 SI Narinder Sehrawat deposed that on 04.07.2019, he received an information at ISC Crime Branch as accused Mohd. Hasan Hussain was arrested by Special Cell and he would be produced before Ld. CMM. Accordingly, he reached in the court of Ld. CMM and moved an application for interrogation of accused and his arrest which is Ex. PW21/A which was allowed by the court. He further deposed that he interrogated accused Mohd. Hasan Hussain, recorded his disclosure statement which is Ex. PW21/B and arrested him vide arrest memo which is Ex.PW21/C. He further deposed that thereafter, he moved an application for TIP of accused which is Ex.PW21/D, however, accused refused to participate in the TIP proceedings vide proceedings which is Ex. PW21/E. Thereafter, he obtained one day police custody of accused but nothing was recovered during the custody. 25.1 During cross examination done on behalf of accused persons, he stated that accused had refused to participate in the TIP on the ground that IO had shown him to various persons during his police custody. He admitted that accused was not taken to Mewat during police custody. He denied all the suggestions put forth on behalf of accused persons.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 Cr.P.C 26.1 Statement of accused persons namely Liyakat, Abid, Inam and Hasan Hussain have been recorded separately today itself on 28.04.2026 and they have pleaded for false implication. Accused persons not opted to lead defence evidence.
26.2 Statement of accused persons namely Irfan, Naseem, Iliyas and Shahed Ahmed under section 313 CrPC is dispensed with as nothing incriminating evidence has come on record against them.
SC No. 8652/2016 State Vs. Javed & Ors. Page No. 34 of 42
FIR No. 11/2015 PS Crime Branch
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2026.04.28
16:32:39 +0530
27. Thereafter, matter was fixed for final arguments.
ARGUMENTS
28. I have heard Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for State and Sh. Pradeep Sharma, Sh. Gyanender Singh, Ld. Counsel for accused Abid, Liyakat and Iliyas and Sh. R. S. Yadav, Ld. Counsel for accused Irfan, Naseem, Shaheed Ahmed, Hasan Hussain and Inam.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE
29. It is argued by Ld. Addl. PP that the allegations levelled against the accused are of serious nature. It is argued that victims Chintan Rana and Jaymin Thakkar have described the entire incident in detail and fully supported the case of the prosecution. At the time of rescue of the victims, accused Javed (PO) was arrested at the spot and he disclosed about the roles of other accused persons. During investigation, accused Liyakat got recovered the robbed mobile phone from his residence, accused Abid got recovered robbed wrist watch from his residence and accused Inam got recovered the robbed mobile phone of PW3 Rana Chintan from his residence. Accused Hasan Hussain was declared proclaimed offender and offence under section 174-A IPC stands proved against him. It is submitted that prosecution has successfully proved its case against the accused persons and they may be convicted accordingly.
It was further argued that all the police officials have clearly proved the chain and the manner of investigation and merely because the witnesses are police officials their testimony cannot be disbelieved and for this reliance is placed on the case of Girija Prasad Vs. State of M.P. (2007) 7 SCC 625 .
SC No. 8652/2016 State Vs. Javed & Ors. Page No. 35 of 42
FIR No. 11/2015 PS Crime Branch
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2026.04.28
16:32:56 +0530
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED PERSONS
30. Per contra, Ld. counsels for accused persons have argued that this is a false and concocted case hoisted against the accused persons. It is submitted that victims have failed to identify the accused persons as the offenders, who were involved in their abduction and other offences. It is submitted that the theory of criminal conspiracy has gone unproved and allegation of section 412 IPC has not been proved as per law. It is further submitted that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against accused persons. Hence, accused persons are entitled to be given benefit of doubt and they may be acquitted accordingly.
31. I have heard the arguments at length and perused the entire record.
FINDINGS
32. The accused Liyakat, Irfan, Naseem, Iliyas, Abid, Shaheed Ahmed, Inam and Hasan Hussain are charged for the commission of offences punishable under sections 364A/342/395/120-B IPC. Liyakat, Abid and Inam are additionally charged under section 412 IPC whereas accused Hasan Hussain is additionally charged under section 174-A IPC.
33. The relevant sections are reproduced as under:
SECTION 364A IPC Kidnapping for ransom etc.- Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction, and threatens to cause death or hurt to such person, or by his conduct SC No. 8652/2016 State Vs. Javed & Ors. Page No. 36 of 42 FIR No. 11/2015 PS Crime Branch Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2026.04.28 16:33:01 +0530 gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt, or causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or any foreign State or international inter-governmental organisation or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom, shall be punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
SECTION 342 IPC Punishment for wrongful confinement- Whoever wrongfully confines any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
SECTION 395 IPC Punishment for Dacoity- Whoever commits dacoity shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
SECTION 120-B IPC Concealing design to commit offence punishable with imprisonment- Whoever, intending to facilitate or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby facilitate the commission of an offence punishable with imprisonment, voluntarily conceals, by any act or illegal omission, the existence of a design to commit such offence, or makes any representation which he knows to be false respecting such design:
If offence be committed -- shall, if the offence be committed, be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth, and, if the offence be not committed, to one-eight, of the longest term of such imprisonment, or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both.
SECTION 412 IPC
SC No. 8652/2016 State Vs. Javed & Ors. Page No. 37 of 42
FIR No. 11/2015 PS Crime Branch
Digitally signed
DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA
RANA
RANA Date: 2026.04.28
16:33:06 +0530
Dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission of a dacoity-Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, the possession whereof he knows or has reason to believe to have been transferred by the commission of dacoity, or dishonestly receives from a person, whom he knows or has reason to believe to belong or to have belonged to a gang of dacoits, property which he knows or has reason to believe to have been stolen, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
SECTION 174-A IPC Non appearance in response to a proclamation under section 82 of Act 2 of 1974- Whoever fails to appear at the specified place and the specified time as required by a proclamation published under subâ€'section (1) of section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both, and where a declaration has been made under subâ€'section (4) of that section pronouncing him as a proclaimed offender, he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
34. It is a settled law of criminal jurisprudence that a person is believed to be innocent till the guilt is proved against him. This principle is called The Presumption of Innocence. In another words, the accused is entitled to take advantage of reasonable doubt in respect of his crime. The principle finds its genesis in the Declaration of Human Rights under Article 11 Section 1 incorporated by the United Nations in 1948. It is also mentioned in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights in Article 6 Section 2 and United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights SC No. 8652/2016 State Vs. Javed & Ors. Page No. 38 of 42 FIR No. 11/2015 PS Crime Branch Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2026.04.28 16:33:11 +0530 under Article 14, Section 2.
Presumption of Innocence is a re-statement of the rule that in criminal matters the prosecution has the burden of proving guilt of the accused in order to be convicted of the crime of which he is charged.
In Chandrashekhar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh decided on 06.07.2018 relying on judgment of Data Ram Singh Vs. State of UP passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 06.02.2018, it was held that:
"the freedom of an individual is utmost important and cannot be curtailed specially when guilt if any, is yet to be proved.It is settled law that till such time guilt of a person is proved, he is deemed to be innocent........ A fundamental postulate of criminal juris prudence is a presumption of innocence meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty..........
Thus, the inference which is culled out from the above is that it is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
35. In this backdrop, I proceed to delve upon the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution.
36. It is the case of the prosecution that accused Javed (PO) was the mastermind of the kidnapping racket. He induced PW2 Jaymin Thakkar to visit Delhi on the pretext of selling scrap at a lucrative price. When PW2 Jaymin Thakkar and PW3 Chintan Rana reached Delhi, they were abducted in a Tata Safari and they were taken to a village in Rupdaka, Tehsil Hatin, District, Palwal, Haryana. They were kept in confinement and were also beaten over there. The family of PW2 agreed to pay Rs. 10 lakhs as ransom for the release of the victim. When victims were brought to Delhi for receiving the ransom amount in a Tata Safari, the police team rescued the victims and accused Javed SC No. 8652/2016 State Vs. Javed & Ors. Page No. 39 of 42 FIR No. 11/2015 PS Crime Branch Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2026.04.28 16:33:16 +0530 (PO) was also apprehended at the spot. However, three accused persons managed to flee from there. At the instance of accused Javed (PO), other accused persons were arrested and recovery of robbed articles in the form of mobile phones and wrist watch was effected. Accused Javed (PO), Muzakkir (since deceased), Abid, Liyakat, Iliyas, Irfan, Naseem, Shaheed Ahmed, Hasan Hussain and Inam were put to Trial under section 120-B/364A/342/395 IPC.
Accused Liyakat, Abid and Inam were additionally charged under section 412 IPC. Accused Hasan Hussain was additionally charged under section 174-A IPC.
37. The star witnesses of the prosecution to prove allegations under section 120-B/364A/342/395 IPC against accused persons except accused Javed and Muzakkir (since expired) are PW2 Jaymin Thakkar and PW3 Chintan Rana. They have supported the case of the prosecution on the aspect as to how they were induced to reach Delhi, how they were abducted and how they were rescued by the police. But they have failed to identify the offenders involved in all these incidents. Despite thorough cross examination done by Ld. Addl. PP for the State of both these witnesses, nothing concrete could be extract with regard to the fact that any of the accused persons was involved in their abduction, wrongful confinement, dacoity of their belongings, assault and demand of ransom. Therefore, their testimony is of no consequence against the accused persons as far as allegations under section 120-B/364A/342/395 IPC are concerned.
38. It is argued on behalf of State that prosecution has proved its case against Liyakat, Inam and Abid under section 412 IPC as they were found in possession of robbed articles. I do not find any merit in the submission of Ld. SC No. 8652/2016 State Vs. Javed & Ors. Page No. 40 of 42 FIR No. 11/2015 PS Crime Branch Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2026.04.28 16:33:22 +0530 Addl. PP for the State in this regard as to prove the allegation of retention of stolen property, it was duty of the prosecution to prove the fact that recovered mobile phones and wrist watch were owned by PW2 and PW3. These articles were never shown to PW2 and PW3 during their examination and therefore, this fact remains unproved that the recovered articles were owned by them. Moreover, recovery proceedings were not witnessed by any public witness and it is not the case of the prosecution that family members of the accused persons were not present at the time of these recoveries or any notice was served upon any public person from the neighbourhood to join the proceedings. The case of the prosecution under section 412 IPC mainly remained unproved due to the fact that case properties could not be identified by the owners as same were not put to them during their deposition.
39. As far as allegation under section 174-A IPC against accused Hasan Hussain is concerned, same is also not proved as per law. Process under section 83 CrPC was executed by process server PW12 SI Aas Mohd. He has nowhere deposed in his testimony that he also executed process under section 82 CrPC against accused Hasan Hussain. So, there is no clarity whether he had executed process under section 82 CrPC against accused Hasan Hussain or not. Section 174-A IPC is applicable when accused fails to appear after proclamation under section 82(1) and 82(4) CrPC. It nowhere talks about section 83 CrPC. Section 83 CrPC proceedings may be issued by the Court against a proclaimed person for attachment of any property but there is no penal consequences attached to this section. It is section 82 CrPC only wherein an accused person can be prosecuted under section 174-A IPC if proclamation under section 82 CrPC is executed against the accused. Therefore, against Hasan Hussain also prosecution failed to prove its case as per law.
SC No. 8652/2016 State Vs. Javed & Ors. Page No. 41 of 42
FIR No. 11/2015 PS Crime Branch
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2026.04.28
16:33:26 +0530
CONCLUSION
40. Thus, in view of the aforesaid findings, this Court is of the considered view that prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused persons namely Abid, Liyakat, Iliyas, Irfan, Naseem, Shaheed Ahmed, Hasan Hussain and Inam under sections 364A/342/395/120-B IPC due to hostile testimonies of victims namely PW2 Jaymin Thakkar and PW3 Chintan Rana. The allegation under section 412 IPC against accused Inam, Liyakat and Abid and allegation under section 174-A IPC against accused Hasan Hussain remained unproved beyond reasonable doubt due to negligence of the then Ld. Addl. PP for the State. If Ld. Addl. PP for the State had been vigilant while recording the statement of witnesses then the robbed articles could have been exhibited by PW2 and PW3 and process under section 82 CrPC executed by PW12 could have been exhibited during the Trial. Hence, all accused persons Abid, Liyakat, Iliyas, Irfan, Naseem, Shaheed Ahmed, Hasan Hussain and Inam stand acquitted from all the allegations levelled against them.
Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2026.04.28 16:33:32 +0530 Dictated and announced in the open (Dhirendra Rana) Court on 28.04.2026 ASJ-07, Patiala House Courts, (running in 42 pages) New Delhi. SC No. 8652/2016 State Vs. Javed & Ors. Page No. 42 of 42 FIR No. 11/2015 PS Crime Branch