IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 01.05.2025 Pronounced on: 12.05.2025 Aman Kumar @ Sonu ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Naveen Kumar Sheoran, DAG, Haryana.

****

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

292 06.08.2023 Bilaspur, District 364-A, 120-B IPC Yamuna Nagar

1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court second time under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail.

2. In paragraph 10 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

3. The facts and allegations are being taken from the reply filed by the State, which reads as follows:

“3. xxx xxx That on dated 06.08.2023 complainant of this case namely Gaurav Gupta son of Ram Kumar gave a complaint to the police that his father Ram Kumar runs a Karyana shop and he goes for morning walk as usual at Hartol road Bilaspur and comes back after one or two hours. Today at about 6.10 am he went for walking who was having mobile no.90502xxxx and has not returned to home upto 07.30 am. Telephonic call came from his above said mobile on my mobile No.93501xxxx that he will come by evening, so we remained peaceful. Now at about 10.30 am telephonic call was received from the above said mobile phone of my father at my sister’s mobile no.93064xxxx that somebody has kidnapped him and they are demanding Rs.50 lakhs and all gold and in case you inform the police then I will be killed. Legal action be taken. Thereafter, the instant FIR was lodged.”

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he has no objection if this Court while granting bail imposes any stringent conditions including surrender of fire arms, if any. On instructions, counsel further submits that petitioner shall not repeat the offence and would not involve himself in the offence, where the sentence is more than 7 years and if he does so, he has no objection if the State files an application for cancellation of bail. He contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family.

5. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply.

6. It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the reply, which read as follows:

“21. Role of the petitioner – That with regard to the role of the petitioner, the petitioner was having friendship with co-accused Raj Kumar @ Raju and with a view to earn money, the petitioner and his co-accused hatched a criminal conspiracy to kidnap Ram Kumar @ Ramu and in pursuance of their criminal conspiracy, on 06.08.2023, the petitioner and his co- accused Raj Kumar @ Raju in Innova car bearing number HR 58 A 5431 and demanded ransom of Rs.50 lakhs from his release from the family members of the victim.

22. That later on, on 08.09.2024, the accused Pawan Deha, who had put country made pistol on the forehead of the victim at the time of abduction, was arrested in the present case. The above said Pawan alias Harsh was interrogated, and upon interrogation, he suffered his disclosure statement and in pursuance of his disclosure statement, the above said Pawan got recovered a country-made pistol and 2 live cartridges and also got demarcated the relevant places and after the completion of the investigation qua the said Pawan @ Harsh on 07.12.2024, a supplementary challan under the aforesaid sections was submitted before the Ld. Court.” REASONING:

7. The allegations against the petitioner are that he along with his accomplices, abducted the victim Ram Kumar @ Ramu i.e. father of the complainant on gun point and demanded ransom from his family to release him, failing which, they threatened to kill him. As per para 19 of the status report, it is mentioned that report of voice sample of petitioner and his co-accused is awaited and he has been in custody since 08.08.202