HC grants bail to man held for kidnapping employer’s grandson over salary dispute

The Bombay High Court granted bail to Rampal Udaybhan Tiwari, accused of kidnapping his employer’s four-year-old grandson following a salary dispute. Justice Milind N Jadhav ordered Tiwari’s release on a bail bond of ₹15,000

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court granted bail to Rampal Udaybhan Tiwari, accused of kidnapping his employer’s four-year-old grandson following a salary dispute. Justice Milind N Jadhav ordered Tiwari’s release on a bail bond of ₹15,000.

HT Image

Tiwari had been in custody since November 9, 2021, after allegedly kidnapping Bhavesh, the grandson of Inderchand Jivanram Balotia, his employer, from the vicinity of Balotia’s house. The incident reportedly stemmed from a fight between Tiwari and Balotia four days earlier, when a drunken Tiwari demanded his overdue salary. Though the salary was paid, Bhavesh went missing shortly after.

The investigation was initiated when Balotia filed a missing person’s report on November 8, 2021. CCTV footage revealed Tiwari luring the child away. The next morning, Balotia received a ransom call from Tiwari demanding ₹50,000 for the child’s safe return. Tiwari was traced to Nashik Road, where he was arrested along with the child, who was found unharmed and reunited with his family the same evening.

Tiwari’s lawyer argued for his release on bail due to his lengthy imprisonment, despite evidence against him. The prosecution maintained that evidence, including CCTV footage and a ransom call, strongly linked Tiwari to the crime.

Justice Jadhav noted Tiwari’s personal circumstances, including being the sole breadwinner for his family, which includes a four-year-old daughter and an ailing widowed father. The court directed the trial court to expedite the trial and imposed several conditions on Tiwari’s bail, including monthly reporting to Nehru Nagar police station, prohibiting him from entering the police station’s jurisdiction except for reporting, and barring him from leaving Maharashtra without prior permission.

The court emphasised that these observations were prima facie and should not influence the trial. The bail applications, along with an interim application, were disposed of accordingly.