SARDAR SINGH SAROHI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for grant of bail under Section439 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) Mr. Naseem, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitionersubmitted that according to the prosecution case, complainant JugalKishore was abducted by the accused with a view to extort money from himby putting him in fear of death. He, therefore, submitted that in terms ofthe allegations, the petitioner could be charged under Section 586 Indian Penal Code andnot under Section 364 Indian Penal Code He further submitted that under Section 386 IPC,the maximum punishment provided is upto 10 years and fine. The learnedcounsel, therefore, contended that since the maximum punishment providedfor Section 364 Indian Penal Code is 10 years, the challan was required to be filed within 60days from the date of arrest, but since the challan was filed beyond 60 days,the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail in terms of proviso underSection 167(2) Code of Criminal Procedure. In support of his contention,the learned Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of Allahabad HighCourt in Smt. KusumDevi v. State of U.P., 1992(1) CCR 276.

(3.) Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State,however, submitted that mdous operndi of the accused demanding ransomfrom the complainant whom they had kidnapped, was by putting him infright of his being murdered. Thus there was every likelihood of the complainant being murdered in case the ransom money was not paid for onereason or the other. He submitted that the present case under Section 364IPC and not under Section 386 IPC. He, therefore, contended that sincethe maximum punishment under Section 364 Indian Penal Code is imprisonment for life,the challan could be filed within 90 days and in the present case admittedlythe challan has been filed within 90 days. In support of his contention, thelearned Counsel placed reliance on a judgment of Supreme Court in the caseof Ram Chandar v. State of U.P., AIR 1975 SC 381.