In the Punjab and Haryana High Court, at Chandigarh. CRM-M- 16642 of 2011 (O&M) Decided on July 14,2011 Satpal Singh --Petitioner vs. State of Punjab --Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.G.S.Sandhawalia,Advocate, for the petitioner Rakesh Kumar Jain,J:(Oral) This is an application for anticipatory bail in a case registered vide FIR No.28 dated 31.3.2011 under Section 364 of the IPC at Police Station Subhanpur, District Kapurthala. Allegation of the prosecution is that Mahinder Singh was kidnapped at the instance of the petitioner. On 27.5.2011 this Court had passed the following order:- “The petitioner appears to have hatched a conspiracy to kidnap Mahinder Singh for ranson. This inference has been drawn by the Investigating Agency on the basis of the mobile calls given to the petitioner's number from the mobile phone of Mahinder Singh during the period when he was allegedly kidnapped. As prayed for by counsel for the petitioner, adjourned to 06.7.2011 to enable him to place on record the details of the mobile phone of the relevant period”. On the adjourned date, this Court had passed the following order:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not in a position to place on record details of mobile phone of the relevant period, however he wants to place on record some other documents for which he prays for an adjournment. Adjourned to 14.7.2011”. CRM-M- 16642 of 2011 (O&M) -2- Thereafter, the petitioner has filed an application bearing CRM- 36581 of 2011 for placing on record disclosure statement of accused Balbir Singh @ Bir. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case as there is no evidence on record to connect the name of the petitioner with the kidnapping of Mahinder Singh. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record and found that the petitioner has not disclosed the material facts before this Court inasmuch as he could have easily produced the details of his own mobile phone from which this suspicion could have been removed that there were no calls on his mobile phone from the mobile phone of kidnapped Mahinder Singh during the period of his kidnapping. In view of the above, in my opinion, this case requires custodial interrogation of the petitioner. Therefore, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence the application is hereby dismissed. July 14,2011 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge