IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-1643 of 2009 Date of decision: 20th February, 2009 Nirvair Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. P.S. Mattewal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Mor, Senior DAG Haryana for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) On 29th January, 2009, this Court had passed the following order: “In the present case FIR has been lodged by Darshan Lal in Police Station Panipat, wherein he has stated that on 16.12.2008 at about 6.00 P.M. he received a telephonic call on his mobile phone from Nirvair Singh, wherein it was stated that Rs.5,00,000/- be sent otherwise his son would be kidnapped. The phone from which cal was made is a registered phone on the name of Magandeep son of Nirvair Singh. The phone call was made on 16.12.2008. Complaint was made on 17.12.2008. Case was registered on 22.12.2008. The petitioner has annexed affidavit of Balwinder Kumar Vaid who is none else but relative of complainant. In his affidavit, he has stated that Nirvair Singh, petitioner, is his friend and he operate his mobile phone and made a call to his cousin calling upon to pay amount of neckless which complainant had taken from his shop. Criminal Misc. No. M-1643 of 2009 Balwinder Kumar and his cousin Darshan Lal Vaid, complainant, are in business of Goldsmith. A detailed representation (Annexure P3) has been submitted to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Panipat, Haryana. Two fold arguments have been raised before me in the present case. Firstly, it is highly improbable that a call for ransom shall be made from a phone which is registered in the name of Magandeep son of Nirvair Singh. Secondly, relationship between complainant and Balwinder Kumar who told that he made call to his cousin has not been investigated. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that the FIR was registered after six days of the occurrence. In the FIR, it has been nowhere mentioned that complainant was put under the fear of death or grievous hurt. Therefore ingredients of Section 387 IPC is lacking. Offence, if any, will fall under Section 385 IPC, which according to counsel is bailable. To cover up this, the Investigating Officer stated that a supplementary statement on the seventh day of occurrence was recorded that on telephone it was also stated that the entire family of the complainant shall be ruined. Why this fact was not mentioned in the complaint which was given on the first day and till the registration of FIR, counsel for the State is unable to explain. Still a fair chance ought to be given to the Investigating Agency to investigate the matter. At moment custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 4.2.2009 at 10.00 A.M. In the event of arrest of the petitioner, he shall be released on interim bail. Case to come up for further hearing on 20.2.2009.” Mr. S.S. Mor, Senior DAG Haryana, on instructions from ASI Labh Singh, has stated that petitioner has joined investigation and mobile phone has been recovered. He has further stated that petitioner is no longer required for further custodial interrogation. Criminal Misc. No. M-1643 of 2009 For the reasons stated in order dated January 29, 2009 and in view of the statement made by counsel for the State, interim bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated January 29, 2009 is made absolute till submission of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. (challan). Thereafter, his regular bail application shall be decided by the trial Court on merits. With these observations, present petition is disposed off. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE February 20, 2009 rps