Crl. Misc. No. M-21193 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. of M-21193 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of Decision : November 05, 2009
Sandeep Kumar Bhardwaj .... Petitioner
Vs.
U. T., Chandigarh .... Respondent
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
* * *
Present : Mr. Rajiv Kataria, Advocate
for the applicant-petitioner.
Mr. D. D. Sharma, Standing Counsel
for respondent – UT, Chandigarh.
* * *
L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :
Crl. Misc. No. 56091 of 2009 :
Application is allowed and Annexure P-2 is taken on record,
subject to all just exceptions.
Main Case :
Sandeep Kumar Bhardwaj has filed this petition for bail in
case FIR No. 650 dated 28.11.2008, under Sections 364-A, 473, 419, 34 of
the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC), and Section 25 of the Arms Act,
registered at Police Station Sector 39, Chandigarh.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
Crl. Misc. No. M-21193 of 2009 2
case file.
According to the prosecution version, on 28.11.2008, Japjit
Singh aged seven years, son of complainant Surjit Singh had gone to take
tuition at 04:00 P.M. From the tutor’s place, the boy went to nearby market
of Sector 38-West, Chandigarh for purchasing note-book, but did not return
from there either to the place of tuition or to his home. At about 05:45
P.M., one person claiming himself to be Rohit, telephonically informed
Royal General Store that the boy had been kidnapped by them. Thereafter,
complainant also received telephonic call, wherein ransom of
Rs.20,00,000/- was demanded. The caller also told that they would call up
again at 09:00 P.M. The complainant again received a call at 09:00 P.M.
asking him to arrange the money. The complainant was also told that the
caller party had kidnapped the child from Sector 38-West, Chandigarh. On
29.11.2008, ransom money of Rs.3,35,000/- was paid. As per directions of
the kidnappers, bag containing the money was thrown from an over-bridge,
down on the road. Thereafter, the child was released and was found in
parking of Rose Garden, Sector 16, Chandigarh at about 09:00 P.M. on
29.11.2008. On 01.12.2008, petitioner and his three co-accused were
apprehended by police party on receipt of secret information. The four
accused came in two cars bearing fake number plates. At the time of arrest
of the petitioner, a sum of Rs.25,000/- was recovered from him. Another
amount of Rs.55,000/- out of the ransom money was recovered at the
instance of the petitioner on 04.12.2008. Voice of the caller demanding
ransom had been recorded. The said voice has been found to be of the
petitioner. The accused persons had stayed in a hotel at Chandigarh on
27.11.2008. Entry in the register of the hotel has been found to be in the
handwriting of the petitioner, as per report of handwriting expert.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that within 90
days of the arrest of the petitioner, complete challan was not submitted in
Crl. Misc. No. M-21193 of 2009 3
the Court and only incomplete challan was submitted inasmuch as reports of
Forensic Science Laboratory and handwriting expert regarding voice and
handwriting were presented in the Court after expiry of 90 days from the
arrest of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner accordingly
prayed for release of the petitioner on bail in view of proviso to Section 167
(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short – Cr.P.C.). Reliance in
support of this contention has been placed on a judgment of Bombay High
Court in the case of Sunil Vasantrao Phulbande and another vs. State
of Maharashtra – reported as 2003 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 171 and also a
judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Matchumari
China Venkatareddy and others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh –
reported as 1994 Crl. L. J. 257. According to these judgments, incomplete
challan does not satisfy the requirements of Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. and
therefore, the accused would become entitled to bail. However, learned
counsel for respondent has cited a judgment of this Court in the case of Dr.
Ravdeep Kaur vs. State of Punjab – reported as 2006 (4) R.C.R.
(Criminal) 328. In that case also, challan was put up in the Court within 90
days of the arrest of accused. However, supplementary challan with report
of Forensic Science Laboratory was put up after expiry of period of 90 days.
It was held that filing of supplementary challan would not render the first
challan incomplete. Consequently, accused was held not entitled to bail
under proviso to Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. Both the judgments cited by
learned counsel for the petitioner mentioned herein above were also noticed
by this Court in the case of Dr. Ravdeep Kaur (supra). Consequently, in
view of judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. Ravdeep Kaur (supra),
the aforesaid contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot
be accepted.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued on merits that the
Crl. Misc. No. M-21193 of 2009 4
petitioner and other accused were shown to the kidnapped boy in the Court
and rather the boy had identified somebody else as Rohit on the basis of
photograph. However, learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that
voice of the telephone caller, who made ransom demand, has been found to
be of the petitioner. Entry in the hotel, where the petitioner and his co-
accused stayed, was also in the handwriting of the petitioner. Moreover, the
kidnapped boy identified the petitioner and his co-accused in Test
Identification Parade conducted in jail by Sub Divisional Magistrate.
Cases of kidnapping for ransom are on the rise. The menace of
this nature is assuming alarming proportion. In the instant case, a child
aged seven years was kidnapped and was released on payment of ransom
amount.
Keeping in view all the circumstances, but without meaning to
express any opinion on merits, in my considered opinion, the petitioner does
not deserve the concession of bail.
Dismissed.
November 05, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE