Crl.M. No. M-144 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.M. No. M-144 of 2009 Date of decision : 22.4.2009. ... Ram Parkash and another ................ Petitioners vs. State of Punjab .................Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri Present: Sh. H.S. Rakhra, Advocate for the petitioners. Sh. A.P. S. Mann, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab Sh. Sukhraj Singh Brar, Advocate for the complainant ... K.C. Puri, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Ram Parkash – petitioner No.1 has been arrested and has been bailed out. So, application qua him may be dismissed as not pressed. The application qua Ram Parkash – petitioner No.1 stands dismissed as not pressed. The allegation made in the FIR is only on the basis of statement of Varkha Rani w/o Parveen Kumar, who has stated that she is married to Parveen Kumar about 10 years back, who was working in Airtel company at Bathinda. His job is to do the Crl.M. No. M-144 of 2009 -2- verification of the new connection holders. During his job, he got introduced to Ram Parkash @ Raju - accused and his family and she has suspicion that Parveen Kumar has relations with Rakhi daughter of Raju. Ram Parkash is a truck driver and he has kidnapped Parveen Kumar on 10.8.2008. Learned State counsel, on instructions from HC Rajinder Singh, has stated at the Bar, that Rakhi – daughter of the petitioners is also missing alongwith Parveen Kumar. So, without commenting on the merits of the case, in my view, petitioner No.2 Chando is entitled to the concession of bail. Consequently, her bail application stands accepted. In the event of arrest, petitioner No.2- Chando is ordered to be released on bail on the following conditions:- i) that she will join the investigation as and when required by the police; ii)that she shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court and iii)that she will surrender her passport with the police, if any. ( K.C. Puri ) 22.4.2009. Judge chugh