-1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.M.No.32860 and 32861 of 2009 and Crl.M.No.M-15188 of 2009 Date of Decision: 10.7.2009 Wahab and another ....Petitioners. Vs. State of Haryana ..Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present : Mr.Sarfraj Hussain, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Partap Singh, Sr.DAG Haryana. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.(Oral) Crl.M.No.32860 and 32861 of 2009 CMs are allowed as prayed for. Document is taken on record. Main case Apprehending arrest, the petitioners have filed the present bail application in a case registered against them vide FIR No.311 dated 30.8.2008 under Sections 364A, 342, 120-B IPC, Police Station Nuh, District Mewat. The FIR has been registered on the statement of Shokat Ali son of Jumme Khan, who has stated that on 29.8.2008 his brother Asrudin was kidnapped by the petitioner along with other persons. Before coming to this Court, the petitioners had applied for anticipatory bail in the Court below vide bail application No.406 of 2009 which has been dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Mewat at Nuh -2 - vide his order dated 14.5.2009. Vide application bearing Crl.M.No.32861-2009, the petitioners have placed on record true translated copy of enquiry conducted by DSP, Head Quarters, Faridabad dated 16.4.2009 as (Annexure P-2). In the enquiry report, Akhtar, Imran and Rati Khan sons of Roojdar and Wahab son of Fazal were found to be involved in this case of kidnapping of Asrudin. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the other two accused namely Akhtar and Imran were arrested on 7.9.2008 and were released on regular bail. As against this, counsel for the State has argued that it is all the more a good reason for not granting anticipatory bail to the present petitioners. I have heard both the counsel for the parties. Keeping in view the seriousness of the offence and involvement of the petitioners in the crime, I do not find an extraordinary circumstance for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Hence, the petition is dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 10.7.2009 JUDGE Meenu