In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-31314 of 2009 ..... Date of decision:29.1.2010 Karamjit Singh .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. S.P.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shilesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered against him for the offences under Sections 365 and 342 Indian Penal Code. The FIR in the case has been lodged on the statement of Amritpal Singh, who has alleged that his sister-in-law (wife's younger sister) aged 14 years, was a student of eighth class in Saint Soldier School, Naruana, Bathinda which was being run by the petitioner. The complainant used to meet the petitioner when he went to school to deposit her school fee and enquire about her studies. On 3.10.2009, the father-in-law of the complainant, namely, Gurchand Singh informed the complainant that his daughter had gone with the petitioner and other girls to Indian Public School, Parsuram Nagar, Bathinda for her practicals. The father-in-law of the complainant had asked him to go to Indian Public School to pick-up his daughter at 12.00 p.m. When the complainant reached Indian Public School at 12.00 p.m. he saw that the petitioner had forcibly taken his sister-in-law Cr. Misc. No.M-31314 of 2009 [2] in a Maruti van and had kidnapped her. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, in fact, the complainant himself had an evil eye on his sister-in-law, which was noticed by the petitioner and he warned the complainant to mend his ways otherwise this fact would be brought to the notice of the parents of the girl. Due to the said grudge the complainant has concocted the story of alleged kidnapping. According to the learned counsel for the State when the girl was recovered her hands and feet were tied and a tape was put on her mouth. The rope which was used for tying the hands and feet as also the tape have been recovered in pursuance of a recovery memo. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the petitioner is in custody since 3.10.2009. The case for the offence under Section 365 IPC is triable by a Magistrate of the first class. The offence under Section 342 IPC is non-cognizable and bailable. The trial in the case is likely to take time. The prosecution is to establish its case on the basis of evidence and material. The challan in the case has been filed. Therefore, the custody of the petitioner is not required for the purposes of investigation. In the circumstances, the petitioner on his furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the learned trial Magistrate shall be admitted to bail. The criminal miscellaneous petition stands disposed of. January 29, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*