IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No. M 2423 of 2009 Date of decision: 20.03.2009 Seema ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present: Mr.Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Kaushik, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. *** Harbans Lal, J.( Oral) This petition has been moved by Seema under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail during pendency of trial in case F.I.R.No.198 under Section 364A, 365,368,34 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Old Faridabad, District Faridabad. Brief facts of the case are that Mahroon Nisha, daughter of the complainant, was living with the complainant along with her two children, One daughter, and one son, namely, Salman aged about five and a half years, for the last about four years as she had filed a petition for maintenance against her husband. The complainant had also given third floor portion of his house on rent to one Vijay, who was living with his wife Seema. It is further alleged that on 27.08.2007 co-accused Seema took Salman along with her saying that she is going to market to purchase RAKHI and when Seema did not come back for long with Salman, then the complainant enquired about Vijay also from his barber shop and he was also found missing. Thus, it was suspected that Vijay and his wife Seema had CRM No. M 2423 of 2009 -2- kidnapped Salman. On the basis of the above allegations, the present case was registered. During investigation, petitioner-applicant Sanjiv and other co-accused were arrested on 02.09.2007. From the possession of petitioner-applicant, a Nokia mobile bearing No.9936928787 by which he had demanded a ransom of Rs. Five lac. On the mobile phone of the complainant, was also taken into possession. Mobile phone used in the occurrence by other co-accused were also taken into possession. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last 1 ½ years and her husband is also behind the bars and the conclusion of trial is likely to take a considerable period. On instructions from Om Parkash, Assistant Sub Inspector, learned State counsel submits that only the investigator remains to be examined in this case. As per allegations in FIR, it was suspected that Vijay and his wife Seema ( referred to the petitioner) has kidnapped Salman. It indicates that the complainant was not sure that Salman was kidnapped by the petitioner along with another. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,it would be appropriate to admit bail to the petitioner. Bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad. March 20, 2009 ( Harbans Lal ) amrit Judge