KRISHAN KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard, learned counsel for the parties. In this application for regular bail the applicant is alleged to have committed offences under Sections 342/364A/365i 366/384/506/120B IPC. According to the allegations levelled against him, he was actively involved in facilitating kidnapping of Lakhbir Kaur and Amarjit Singh children of the informant Charanjeet Kaur and her husband Sardar Swaran Singh. Learned counsel relied upon the order of this court in W.P (Crl.) No. 1255/2001 where Lakhbir Kaur, the allegedly kidnapped girl stated that she was willing to live with her husband Satpal Singh. The other girl Neetu had also stated before the Court that she had married Gurpal Singh. Counsel also relied upon the statements of Lakhbir Kaur PW-2 as well as Neetu who did not support the prosecution version during the course of criminal proceedings. It is submitted that the applicant had been granted bail on 29.01.2001 and he was subsequently arrested on 01.01.2007 because he did not attend the hearings before the court and absconded.

(2.) The bail application is opposed by the counsel for the State. He submits that the offences alleged are serious in nature. It is also submitted that charges were framed on 18.4.2007. Counsel submitted that soon after obtaining bail the applicant did not make any effort to join the investigation and attend the hearings in the court. Consequently he was arrested after proceedings under Sec. 82/83 were initiated.

(3.) The materials on record show that this court had occasion to consider the petitions of the two girls who were alleged to have been kidnapped. They got the statements recorded and stated that they are willing to live with their husbands. Those two girls also did not support the prosecution version regarding the allegations of kidnapping levelled against the petitioner. Although the conduct of the applicant in not joining the proceedings after being granted bail is reprehensible and cannot be condoned, yet at the same time, prima facie it appears that the materials do not support the prosecution and in the circumstances as of now there is remote probability of the applicant being found guilty of the offences he was charged with.