IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 12^th January, 2026 Harjinder Pal Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Vrishank Suri, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

***

MANISHA BATRA, J (ORAL):-

The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 215 dated 01.12.2020 registered under Sections 364-A, 369, 342, 506, 381, 427, 171, 120-B and 411 of IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Dugri, Ludhiana, Punjab.

2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement recorded by the complainant Pankaj Gupta on 01.12.2020, alleging therein that he had hired the petitioner as his driver some time back. On the same day, at about 1.45 PM, the petitioner had taken the complainant’s two-and-a-half- year-old son, namely Vinmar Gupta, in the Swift Dzire car of the complainant for a round and did not return. The wife of the complainant made a call on the mobile phone of the petitioner, who responded by stating that he had kidnapped her son and demanded ransom money, while also threatening her with dire consequences if the matter was reported to the police. The complainant thereafter approached the police for taking action in the matter. 3. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. During the course of investigation, the abandoned car was recovered from Kot Ise Khan Road on the same day with a fake number plate. The kidnapped child was also rescued and recovered from the house of co-accused Lal Singh and Mandeep Kaur on the same day. Shridhar Agarwal, a friend of the complainant, recorded a statement to the effect that on 01.12.2020, he had seen the petitioner driving the Swift Dzire car of the complainant, with the victim sitting on the front seat, while two other persons were sitting on the back seat, and the petitioner was seen bending near the rear number plate of the vehicle. Accused Mandeep Kaur was arrested and suffered a disclosure statement to the effect that the petitioner, along with co-accused Sukhdev Singh, had come to her house on 01.12.2020 along with the abducted child and stayed there till the morning of 02.12.2020. CCTV footage from the camera installed at the place of occurrence was also taken into possession, which revealed the footage of the abduction. The petitioner was arrested thereafter. The investigation now stands completed, and the petitioner, along with the co-accused, is facing trial for commission of the aforementioned offences.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has been in custody since 01.12.2020. The trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, as several witnesses are yet to be examined. Co-accused Mandeep Kaur and Rachpal Singh have already been extended the benefit of bail. Further incarceration of the petitioner would not serve any useful purpose. His involvement in other cases cannot be a ground to deny him the benefit of bail. The eye-witness Shridhar Aggarwal has already been examined and there is no question of his intimidating the complainant or this witness. It is, therefore, urged that the petitioner deserves to be granted the benefit of regular bail.

5. Status report has been filed. Learned State counsel has argued that there are serious and grave allegations against the petitioner. He has criminal antecedents as he is involved in several other criminal cases. There are chances of his absconding or committing similar offences if he is extended the benefit of bail. It is, therefore, stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

6. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length.

7. The petitioner, in connivance with the co-accused, is alleged to ha