High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Mohd. Naseerudin vs State Of Punjab on 15 October, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mohd. Naseerudin vs State Of Punjab on 15 October, 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH




                         Criminal Misc. No. M-25035 of 2009
                         Date of decision : October 15, 2009


Mohd. Naseerudin
                                            ....Petitioner
                         versus

State of Punjab
                                            ....Respondent


Coram:       Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal


Present :    Mr. CS Rana, Advocate, for the petitioner

             Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG Punjab


L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral)

On oral prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner, offence

under section 120-B IPC is also ordered to be added in the petition.

Mohd. Naseerudin has filed this petition for bail in case FIR

No. 60 dated 24.4.2007 under sections 363, 366 IPC sections 120-B and

366-A IPC added later on, Police Station Raikot District Ludhiana.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

case file.

In the FIR lodged by Minakshi, she stated that her daughter

Ruchika aged 16 years was kidnapped on 24.4.2007 by petitioner’s son

Mukhtiar Alam who had been employed by the complainant for stitching

clothes as the complainant was running a boutique. About 8 months after

lodging the FIR i.e. on 14.12.2007, the complainant made supplementary
Criminal Misc. No. M-25035 of 2009 -2-

statement implicating the petitioner by stating that there was also hand of

the petitioner in kidnapping of complainant’s daughter by petitioner’s son.

Statement of one Anil Kumar was recorded on 4.8.2008 i.e. more than 15

months after lodging of the FIR. Anil Kumar stated that on 24.4.2007 he

had seen the petitioner and his two sons including Mukhtiar Alam going in

a bus along with Ruchika. There is said to be no other evidence against

the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 2.1.2008 i.e. for more than

one year and 9 months. Petitioner’s son Mukhtiar Alam and complainant’s

daughter have not yet been traced.

In view of the aforesaid but without commenting anything on

merits, the instant bail petition is allowed. Bail to the satisfaction of

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Ludhiana.




                                                      ( L.N. Mittal )
October 15, 2009                                           Judge
  'dalbir'