Crl. Misc. No.M-23087 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-23087 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14.09.2011 Grant Alan Easton and another ..... Petitioners Versus State of U.T. (Chandigarh) ..... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI Present: Mr. T.T.P. Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Sukant Gupta, Addl. PP, for the respondent. M.M.S. BEDI, J. The petitioners are two foreigners who are Australians. They along with Gursher Singh, Surjit Singh and Gurpreet Singh are allegedly responsible for making preparation for commiting offence of abduction of Harsh Sinha. As such they have been charged under Section 364-A read with Section 511 and 120-B IPC, as the petitioners were allegedly having sharp edged weapons. Knife was recovered from petitioner No.1 and two airguns were recovered from the gypsy bearing No.DL3CA-2923. Therefore offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act was also included. As 20 grams of charas was recovered from petitioner No.2, offence under Section 20 of the NDPS Act has also been included. The petitioners are facing trial for having entered into a conspiracy with their co-Indian accused persons namely Gursher Singh, Surjit Singh and Gurpreet Singh. The petitioners have been charged for offence under Section 364-A read with Section 511 Crl. Misc. No.M-23087 of 2011 (O&M) -2- and 120-B IPC besides having charged under Section 25 of the Arms Act and Section 20 of the NDPS Act. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioners have been involved in the case on the basis of telephonic conversation between the abovesaid three accused and Harsh Sinha as Harsh Sinha had been asked to reach Shiv Mandir, Sector-40 at 6 PM on the date given. The telephone of petitioner No.2 was used for the said purpose. Counsel for the State has opposed the application for bail contending that the application of bail filed by the co-accused has been dismissed on 25.04.2011 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and State counsel and I am of the opinion that it will be debatable during trial whether the petitioners have participated in any event of preparation or an attempt of abduction of Harsh Sinha for ransom. I have gone through the order passed qua the three co-accused and I am of the opinion that the offence if any prima facie has been committed by Gursher Singh, Surjit Singh and Gurpreet Singh. It appears to be improbable that the petitioners have come all the way from Australia to commit the offence of abduction of Harsh Sinha for ransom. I have also gone through the transcript of conversation of Gursher Singh, Surjit Singh and Gurpreet Singh. There is no involvement of the petitioners in the said conversation. The case of the petitioners is distinguishable from that of Gursher Singh, Surjit Singh and Gurpreet Singh against whom there are main allegations. In view of the above circumstances, petitioners can be granted Crl. Misc. No.M-23087 of 2011 (O&M) -3- concession of bail. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds for a sum of Rs.1 lac each with one local surety to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Disposed of. (M.M.S. BEDI) 14.09.2011 JUDGE manju