IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on : 04.11.2025 Pronounced on : 10.11.2025 Raj Kumar @Chhotu ..... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ..... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Argued by: Mr. Vipul Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rohit Bansal, Sr. DAG Punjab.

*****

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

1. For the commission of offence punishable under Sections 364A and 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of Arms Act, the FIR No.93 dated 24.08.2021 has been lodged in Police Station Mohkampura, Police Commisionerate Amritsar. The petitioner is being prosecuted for the commission of abovementioned offence and he has been arrested. The petitioner is in custody and, therefore, craving for bail. This is first petition for bail filed by the petitioner, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

2. In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of this case came into being on the statement of Kailash Chaudhary, who stated that on 23.08.2021, his younger brother, namely Pintu Kumar, did not return home, and that on 24.08.2021 at about 09:00 am, he received a ransom call from mobile No.7347478115, whereby he was instructed to arrange a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- by 12:00 noon. According to complainant, the abovementioned person had kidnapped his younger brother, namely Pintu Kumar, and therefore, a request was made by him to the police for taking appropriate action.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that in response to abovementioned complaint, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. As per prosecution, during the course of investigation, the victim was recovered and the accused apprehended.

4. Heard.

5. It has been argued on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner has already suffered a lot of incarceration for being in custody for a period of more than 04 years and 2 months, and that except the present case, there is one more case under Section 42/52A of the Prison Act. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the trial is proceeding at a very snail pace, as out of 21 prosecution witnesses, only 06 have been examined so far.

6. Per contra, the learned State Counsel has argued that allegations against the petitioner are for the commission of very serious offence, i.e. kidnapping for ransom, and that already 06 prosecution witnesses have been examined in the present case, and 04 have been given up. As per learned State Counsel, only 11 prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined, and that this allegation of the petitioner is false that there is no significant progress in the trial. It has also been contended by learned State Counsel that there is no change in circumstances.

7. The record has been perused carefully.

8. A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration, for arriving at any decision with regard to present petition for bail: -

i) that the petitioner has already suffered a lot of incarceration for being in custody for a period of more than 04 years and 02 months;

ii) that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future also;

iii) that nothing is left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner;

iv) that detention of petitioner in judicial lockup is not likely to serve any purpose;

v) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses and vi) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the trial.

9. With regard to the legal aspect involved in the instant case, the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another”, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, are relevant, wherein it has been observed that “ fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a per