Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mandip vs State Of Haryana on 17 September, 2013
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Crl. Misc. No. M-26117 of 2013 -1-
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Crl. Misc. No. M-26117 of 2013
Date of Decision: 17.9.2013.
Mandip ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana .....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. A.D.S.Jattana, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Gaurav Dhir, DAG, Haryana.
****
SABINA, J.
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking regular bail in FIR No. 1141 dated 4.9.2012 under Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short) (Section 364-A, 120-B IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 added later on), registered at Police Station Panipat City, District Panipat.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that FIR in question was registered on the basis of statement made by Ritu, wife of Parveen Parkash that her husband had been abducted. Father-in-law of the victim had alleged that when he had called his son-in-law then some body had raised a demand of ransom. The victim had, however, managed to escape on the Singh Gurpreet 2013.09.17 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M-26117 of 2013 -2- same day. No identification parade of the accused had been got conducted during investigation.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition.
In the present case, petitioner is in custody since 17.10.2012. The victim had managed to escape on the same day. There is no payment of any ransom amount.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this petition is allowed. Petitioner be admitted to bail subject to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat.
(SABINA) JUDGE September 17, 2013 Gurpreet Singh Gurpreet 2013.09.17 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh