Crl. Misc. No. M-21193 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. of M-21193 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : November 05, 2009 Sandeep Kumar Bhardwaj .... Petitioner Vs. U. T., Chandigarh .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Rajiv Kataria, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner. Mr. D. D. Sharma, Standing Counsel for respondent – UT, Chandigarh. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Crl. Misc. No. 56091 of 2009 : Application is allowed and Annexure P-2 is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Main Case : Sandeep Kumar Bhardwaj has filed this petition for bail in case FIR No. 650 dated 28.11.2008, under Sections 364-A, 473, 419, 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC), and Section 25 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Sector 39, Chandigarh. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Crl. Misc. No. M-21193 of 2009 2 case file. According to the prosecution version, on 28.11.2008, Japjit Singh aged seven years, son of complainant Surjit Singh had gone to take tuition at 04:00 P.M. From the tutor's place, the boy went to nearby market of Sector 38-West, Chandigarh for purchasing note-book, but did not return from there either to the place of tuition or to his home. At about 05:45 P.M., one person claiming himself to be Rohit, telephonically informed Royal General Store that the boy had been kidnapped by them. Thereafter, complainant also received telephonic call, wherein ransom of Rs.20,00,000/- was demanded. The caller also told that they would call up again at 09:00 P.M. The complainant again received a call at 09:00 P.M. asking him to arrange the money. The complainant was also told that the caller party had kidnapped the child from Sector 38-West, Chandigarh. On 29.11.2008, ransom money of Rs.3,35,000/- was paid. As per directions of the kidnappers, bag containing the money was thrown from an over-bridge, down on the road. Thereafter, the child was released and was found in parking of Rose Garden, Sector 16, Chandigarh at about 09:00 P.M. on 29.11.2008. On 01.12.2008, petitioner and his three co-accused were apprehended by police party on receipt of secret information. The four accused came in two cars bearing fake number plates. At the time of arrest of the petitioner, a sum of Rs.25,000/- was recovered from him. Another amount of Rs.55,000/- out of the ransom money was recovered at the instance of the petitioner on 04.12.2008. Voice of the caller demanding ransom had been recorded. The said voice has been found to be of the petitioner. The accused persons had stayed in a hotel at Chandigarh on 27.11.2008. Entry in the register of the hotel has been found to be in the handwriting of the petitioner, as per report of handwriting expert. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that within 90 days of the arrest of the petitioner, complete challan was not submitted in Crl. Misc. No. M-21193 of 2009 3 the Court and only incomplete challan was submitted inasmuch as reports of Forensic Science Laboratory and handwriting expert regarding voice and handwriting were presented in the Court after expiry of 90 days from the arrest of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner accordingly prayed for release of the petitioner on bail in view of proviso to Section 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short – Cr.P.C.). Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on a judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Sunil Vasantrao Phulbande and another vs. State of Maharashtra – reported as 2003 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 171 and also a judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Matchumari China Venkatareddy and others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh – reported as 1994 Crl. L. J. 257. According to these judgments, incomplete challan does not satisfy the requirements of Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. and therefore, the accused would become entitled to bail. However, learned counsel for respondent has cited a judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. Ravdeep Kaur vs. State of Punjab – reported as 2006 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 328. In that case also, challan was put up in the Court within 90 days of the arrest of accused. However, supplementary challan with report of Forensic Science Laboratory was put up after expiry of period of 90 days. It was held that filing of supplementary challan would not render the first challan incomplete. Consequently, accused was held not entitled to bail under proviso to Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. Both the judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner mentioned herein above were also noticed by this Court in the case of Dr. Ravdeep Kaur (supra). Consequently, in view of judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. Ravdeep Kaur (supra), the aforesaid contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued on merits that the Crl. Misc. No. M-21193 of 2009 4 petitioner and other accused were shown to the kidnapped boy in the Court and rather the boy had identified somebody else as Rohit on the basis of photograph. However, learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that voice of the telephone caller, who made ransom demand, has been found to be of the petitioner. Entry in the hotel, where the petitioner and his co- accused stayed, was also in the handwriting of the petitioner. Moreover, the kidnapped boy identified the petitioner and his co-accused in Test Identification Parade conducted in jail by Sub Divisional Magistrate. Cases of kidnapping for ransom are on the rise. The menace of this nature is assuming alarming proportion. In the instant case, a child aged seven years was kidnapped and was released on payment of ransom amount. Keeping in view all the circumstances, but without meaning to express any opinion on merits, in my considered opinion, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail. Dismissed. November 05, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE