CRM No.M-30214 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-10.11.2010 Satender son of Ramswarup ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Tarun Aggarwal, Senior DAG Haryana. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Invoking the provisions of section 439 Cr.PC., petitioner Satender son of Ramswarup, has filed the present petition for regular bail in a case registered against him alongwith his other co-accused, namely, Chander Kala and others, vide FIR No.118 dated 24.7.2010, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 363 and 366-A IPC by the police of Police Station Nangal Chaudhary, District Mahendergarh. 2. Concisely, the case of the prosecution is that on 17.7.2010, the wife and daughter of complainant Goma Ram were present in their house. At about 1 O' clock at night, Chander Kalan, wife of petitioner Satender, came, wake up and asked his (complainant) wife to send her daughter Meena Kumari with her as she was suffering from loose motion. Thereafter, Meena Kumari accompanied her. After waiting for about one hour, Meena Kumari did not return the home. On enquiry, it revealed that the petitioner and some unknown accused enticed her away on the motorcycle. According to the prosecution, the accused kidnapped the victim. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, the present case was registered against the accused, in the manner CRM No.M-30214 of 2010 2 indicated here-in-above. 3. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this respect. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended with some amount of vehemence that on 17.7.2010, victim Meena Kumari herself called two boys Sonu and Inder at her house. Later on, she slipped from her house with them. On the way, motorcycle slipped and they felled on the ground. Thereafter, they fled away leaving the victim at the spot. The petitioner and Meena Kumari called the villagers of village Mandi. The uncle of the victim alongwith other persons came and took her to his village and informed the police as under:- “My niece Meena daughter of Sh.Goma Ram caste Jat is resident of village Kalba, Police Station Nangal Chaudhary. Today in the night, she had gone from home due to mistake and is found in village Mandi. She is mentally upset. Now we are taking Meena with us in safe condition and nobody is at fault in this, because some times mind of Meena does not work properly. Now we, villagers are taking Meena with us in safe condition. I am going with my uncle out of my own will.” 6. Above being the position on record, the false implication of the petitioner cannot possibly be ruled out at this stage. Moreover, the offences alleged against the petitioner are triable by the Court of Magistrate. The petitioner was arrested on 25.7.2010 and since then he is in judicial custody. No useful purpose would be served for further detaining him in jail. As the challan has been presented by the police, therefore, the conclusion of trial would naturally take long time. There is no history of previous involvement of the petitioner in any criminal case. 7. So, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as described here-in-above, to me, the CRM No.M-30214 of 2010 3 present petitioner is entitled to regular bail in the obtaining circumstances of the instant case. 8. In the light of the aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial of the case, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court. 9. Needless to say that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the main case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition. 10. The instant petition is disposed of accordingly. 10.11.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge