IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-25874 of 2009 Date of Decision : November 17, 2009 Mausam ... Petitioner versus State of Haryana ... Respondent Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Sidharth Sarup, AAG Haryana L. N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Mausam has filed this petition for bail in case FIR No. 352 dated 17.11.2006 under sections 120-B, 364A, 368, 379 and 411 IPC and section 25 of Arms Act, Police Station Ganaur, District Sonepat. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. According to the prosecution version, one Parveen was abducted for ransom. Demand of Rs one crore as ransom money was made. Parveen was detained in the house of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is only landlord of the house where Parveen was detained by co-accused who were tenants in the house. The contention cannot be accepted at this stage because Parveen was detained in the house of the petitioner. Ransom demand was made from the house of the petitioner and petitioner's wife had been serving meals to the petitioner's co-accused as well as to the detenue. Consequently, at this stage, it cannot be said that petitioner was only Criminal Misc. No. M-25874 of 2009 -2- landlord of the premises and had no idea of what was going on there. Cases of kidnapping or abduction for ransom are on the rise. This is very serious menace to the society. Nobody feels safe. In view of the aforesaid but without meaning to express any opinion on the merits, the instant bail petition is dismissed. ( L. N. Mittal ) November 17, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'