Criminal Misc. No. M-2429 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-2429 of 2010 Date of decision : March 17, 2010 Sandeep Kumar Bharadwaj ....Petitioner versus U.T. Chandigarh ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate for UT, Chandigarh L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) This is second petition for bail moved by accused Sandeep Kumar Bhardwaj in case FIR No. 650 dated 28.11.2008, under sections 364-A, 473, 419 read with section 34 IPC and section 25 of the Arms Act, Police Station Sector-39, Chandigarh. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. After dismissal of previous bail petition filed by the petitioner vide order dated 5.11.2009 by this Court, no fresh ground has arisen for releasing petitioner on bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that petitioner is in custody since 1.12.2008. At the time of Criminal Misc. No. M-2429 of 2010 -2- motion hearing on 1.2.2010 it was argued that even charge had not been framed. However, now as per report received from the trial Judge, charge has since been framed on 24.2.2010. The case has been fixed for seven dates for recording prosecution evidence since 15.3.2010 till 12.5.2010. It may be observed that cases of kidnapping for ransom are on the rise. A child aged seven years was kidnapped and ransom was demanded. The child was released on payment of ransom. The ransom money was also allegedly recovered from the petitioner and his co-accused. They were caught while travelling in two cars bearing fake registration numbers. The petitioner had made entry in the Guest House where he had stayed under a false name and the entry as per report of the handwriting expert has been found to be in the handwriting of the petitioner. The ransom calls were also made by the petitioner as per expert report comparing sample voice of the petitioner with the recorded voice of the ransom calls. The petitioner was also identified at test identification parade. In view of the aforesaid, but without meaning to express any opinion on merits, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail. Dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) March 17, 2010 Judge 'tiwana'