IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM-M-28791 2011 Decided on 20.12.2011 Sandip Singh @ Sona --Petitioner vs. State of Punjab --Respondent AND CRM-M-29256 of 2011 Decided on 20.12.2011 Palwinder Singh --Petitioner vs. State of Punjab --Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Atul Lakhanpal,Sr.Advocate, with Mr.Arjun Lakhanpal,Advocate, for the petitioner (s) Mr. A.S.Rai, DAG, Punjab RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,J: (ORAL) This order shall dispose of two petitions bearing CRM-M- 28791 of 2011 titled as Sandip Singh @ Sona Vs. State of Punjab (hereinafter referred to as the first petition) and CRM-M-29256 of 2011 titled as Palwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab (hereinafter referred to as the second petition) as both have arisen from FIR No. 28 dated 31.3.2011, registered under Section 364-A of the IPC at Police Station Subhanpur, District Kapurthala, in which they have prayed for regular bail during the pendency of trial. The FIR is registered on the complaint of Rashpal Singh @ CRM-M-28791 2011 -2- Ladi, who had alleged that his father was taken away by an unknown person on the pretext of purchasing the land of his sister Iqbaljit Kaur. It is further recorded in the FIR that they had received a phone call that his father is in the custody of the kidnappers and they had received `20,00,000/-for eliminating him and threatened that if he (complainant) wants to save his father, then he should give `50,00,000/-. Since the complainant could not manage `50,00,000/-, the kidnappers asked him to arrange `20,00,000/-. It is an admitted fact that neither the money was paid nor the kidnapped person was injured. Rather, it is the case of the prosecution that he was released by the kidnappers themselves. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the petitioners had made the statement about the kidnapping while in custody in FIR No. 47 dated 20.4.2011, under Sections 420,482,384,160 IPC and 25/54/59 Arms Act, Police Station, City Phagwara. Learned counsel for the petitioner (s) has submitted that they have been falsely implicated in this case as their statements have been taken by the police in custody. In this case, admittedly, no harm has been caused to the kidnapped person (Mohinder Singh). Learned counsel has further submitted that the case was adjourned three times for recording the statement of the complainant but the prosecution has failed to produce him in the witness box. The petitioners are in custody from 27.4.2011 and except for FIR No. 47 (referred to above), no other case is pending against the petitioners nor they are the previous convicts. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case but without making any observation on merit, the present petitions are allowed and the petitioners CRM-M-28791 2011 -3- are directed to be released on bail on their furnishing personal bonds of `1,00,000/-with two local heavy sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. 20.12.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge