Crl. Misc. No.M-12287 of 2011 (O&M) *** Heena Gogia @ Rickey Vs. State of Punjab Present : Mr. D.P.S. Kahlon, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Bhawna Gupta, D.A.G., Punjab. ******* AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) Learned counsel for the petitioner states that inadvertently Sections 24 and 61 of the Arms Act have been mentioned in the petition instead of Sections 25 and 59 of the Arms Act. This petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case F.I.R. No.21 dated 28.01.2010 registered under Sections 364-A, 307, 473, 201 IPC and under Sections 25, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act at Police Station City Rajpura, District Patiala. On 03.05.2011 the following order was passed:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner states that co- accused – Sanjeev Kumar was granted regular bail by this Court on the ground that victim – Rupesh Mehta PW2 has refused to identify him while appearing in the witness box. He has further argued that PW2 – Rupesh Mehta has stated on oath that he had never seen Heena Gogia, present petitioner, at any time prior the day when he was making statement on oath. He has further argued that PW2 – Rupesh Mehta has further stated on oath that no girl was involved in his kidnapping. Notice of motion for 26.05.2011.” Crl. Misc. No.M-12287 of 2011 (O&M) -2- On instructions from Head Constable Surjit Singh learned Deputy Advocate General has accepted these factual assertions. In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to grant regular bail to the petitioner to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Ordered accordingly. Petition stands disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) May 26, 2011. JUDGE ashish