CRM No. M-16748 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-16748 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 3.8.2009 Rupinder Pal Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Mandeep Sachdev, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab. Rajan Gupta, J. This is a petition praying for grant of regular bail in a case registered against the petitioner under Sections 364, 392, 506, 120-B/34, 364A, 307, 149 & 148 IPC and 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act, at Police Station Nurmahal, District Jalandhar, vide FIR No.10 dated 11.01.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been roped in with the aid of Section 120-B IPC. He has undergone long period of incarceration. In the charge-sheet, no role is attributed to the petitioner and there is a resolution of Gram Panchayat dated 12th February, 2008 (Annexure P-6) to show that the petitioner is totally innocent. Learned counsel for the State has, however, vehemently opposed the bail. According to him, present is a case of kidnapping for ransom. Learned counsel has emphasized that ransom money to the tune of Rs. One crore was paid for the release of Gagan Mohindru. The petitioner is in fact brother-in-law of co-accused Jitender Singh, who CRM No. M-16748 of 2009 2 abducted Gagan Mohindru at pistol point. The abductee was allegedly lodged in the dicky of the Honda City car. This apart, according to the counsel trial is nearing its culmination and only one witness i.e. investigating officer remains to be cross-examined. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case. Prima facie, the allegations against the petitioner are very serious in nature. They are alleged to have abducted a 22 years old boy namely, Gagan Mohindru in conspiracy with each other, at gun point. Ransom money to the tune of rupees one crore was paid for release of the said boy. I find no ground for grant of bail to the petitioner in wake of such serious allegations. The pleas raised by the counsel for the petitioner before this court can only be raised at the stage of arguments before the trial court. The same have no relevance at this stage. This apart, the trial is stated to be at its final stage as only one prosecution witness remains to be cross-examined. In the facts and circumstances of the case, long incarceration of the petitioner during the pendency of the trial is also no ground for grant of bail. Under the circumstances, there is no ground for enlarging the petitioner on bail during the pendency of trial. The petition is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE August 03, 2009 'rajpal'