(1.) This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail on behalf of the petitioner.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The main contention of the learned counsel is that the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail on the basis of parity. It is contended by him that the co-accused persons, namely, Hemant and Lalit, who had major role in the abduction and demand of ransom from the victim's father, have already been enlarged on bail by the learned trial court and, therefore, on the basis of parity, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail. It was contended that so far as the accused Hemant and Lalit are concerned, recovery of the car has been affected at their instance and it is also established that they were having telephonic conversation with the family of the victim, Santraj. As against this, it is the case of the learned counsel that so far as the present petitioner is concerned, the victim has been recovered from his house and at the time of recovery, his brother Sarju Singh was found to be guarding the premises. It is contended that since Sarju Singh was found to be present at the actual place, from where the victim was recovered and merely because he was the brother of the present petitioner, that could not be a ground for denying the benefit of bail to the petitioner. It was also contended by the learned counsel that in the order of the learned trial court rejecting the bail application of the present petitioner, it has been erroneously noticed that no recovery has been affected from the co-accused persons, namely, Hemant and Lalit and, therefore, that is against the facts brought on record.
(3.) As against this, the learned APP has vehemently contested the grant of bail to the present petitioner. It has been contended by him that the prosecution evidence is almost complete. Even the examination-in-chief of the Investigating Officer and one more witness has already been recorded and they have not been subjected to cross-examination by the present petitioner despite sufficient opportunities having been given to him. It is stated that the brother of the present petitioner, Sarju Singh, was found to be guarding the place where the victim was recovered. It is further stated that Sarju Singh was released on interim bail after which, he has absconded and there is every possibility that if the present petitioner is extended the benefit of bail, he may follow the suit like his brother and flee from the processes of law. Accordingly, grant of bail to the present petitioner has been opposed.