CRM No.M-32198 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-7.12.2010 Mohd. Mushtak son of Safiduddin ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Vishal Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, D.A.G., Punjab. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Petitioner Mohd. Mushtak son of Safiduddin, has instituted the instant petition for the grant of regular bail in a case registered against him alongwith his other co-accused, namely, Abdul Sattar, vide FIR No.101 dated 21.3.2010 for the commission of offence punishable under section 365 IPC by the police of Police Station Focal Point, Ludhiana, invoking the provisions of section 439 Cr.PC. 2. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this respect. 4. Concisely, the prosecution claimed that petitioner Mohd. Mushtak resides in the room adjoining to the room of the complainant. He used to frequently visit the complainant's room. On 19.3.2010 at about 10 a.m. petitioner was present with the complainant in his house. He took his son Manjul to market to purchase ice cream for him. When he did not return, then petitioner called on telephone and asked the complainant to come alongwith his daughter Usha, as he wanted to marry her. According to the prosecution that petitioner alongwith his CRM No.M-32198 of 2010 2 other co-accused took the son of the complainant on the pretext of giving him the ice cream, but he put pressure on the complainant to marry Usha in this regard. Whether the provisions of section 365 IPC are attracted to the facts of this case, would be the moot point to be decided during the course of trial by the trial Court. 5. What is not disputed here is that Abdul Sattar, co-accused of the petitioner, has already been allowed regular bail by this Court, vide order dated 27.10.2010 passed in CRM No.M-28634 of 2010. The offence alleged against the petitioner is triable by the Court of Magistrate. The petitioner was arrested on 23.3.2010 and since then he is in judicial custody. No useful purpose would be served to further detain him in jail. As even charges have not yet been framed against the accused, therefore, conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time. There is no history of previous involvement of the petitioner in any criminal case. 6. Therefore, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial, to me, the present petitioner is entitled to regular bail in the obtaining circumstances of the instant case. 7. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the petition for regular bail is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court. 8. Needless to state that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the instant petition. 7.12.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge