IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-13951 of 2009 Date of decision : July 24, 2009 Gurpreet Singh alias Preet ....Petitioner versus State of Punjab ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. KS Dhaliwal, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG Punjab L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Gurpreet Singh alias Preet has filed this petition for bail in case FIR No. 66 dated 22.9.2005 under sections 307, 148, 149 IPC and section 25 of the Arms Act, Police Station Shahpur Kandi, District Gurdaspur. According to the prosecution version, one Raman Mahajan was abducted for ransom on 21.9.2005 and ransom of Rs 30 lacs was demanded. The police laid trap. Currency bundles containing currency notes on each side and white papers in between were kept in a bag. The bag with the money was kept at the place desired by the abductors. Abductors came there. There was exchange of fire between the abductors and the police party. Resultantly, two abductors were killed. A police official also suffered bullet injury. Two persons were found sitting in a car hidden in bushes. One of them was abductee Raman Mahajan and the other abductor Avinash Kohli alias Chhotu. The said abductor disclosed the names of the other abductors including the petitioner. Avinash Kohli Criminal Misc. No. M-13951 of 2009 -2- had disclosed the names of two deceased abductors as well. The petitioner was declared proclaimed offender and could be arrested on 18.10.2008 only i.e. after three years of the occurrence. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was not among the abductors. The contention cannot be accepted at this stage because the kidnapping took place in the afternoon of 29.9.2005 and the encounter took place on the same night and the petitioner was allegedly among the persons who had come along with abductee to collect the ransom money. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner has been named by co-accused Avinash Kohli only. However, the petitioner cannot be extended benefit of bail in such a serious case when the petitioner was named in the FIR itself although by nick-name Preet. Obviously the police officials or the victim and his family could not have possibly known the names of the abductors. It would be during trial that evidence regarding identification would be led. The petitioner also remained absconding from the process of law for 3 years and was declared proclaimed offender. Keeping in view all the circumstances but without meaning to express any opinion on the merits, I do not find it to be a fit case to release the petitioner on bail. The bail petition is accordingly dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) July 24, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'