DEEPALI BASSI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE matrix of the facts & material,, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the instant petition for the grant of concession of regular bail, filed by the petitioner and emanating from the record, as claimed by the prosecution, is that on 13.7.2013, Munish Kumar, son of complainant Harminder Pal (for brevity "the complainant") was going to Ludhiana in his BMW car, bearing registration No.PB -10 -DN - 6575. Him Lal son of D.R.Sharma was its driver. Accused Tony and Himmat Singh, having walkie -talkie in their hands, started following the indicated car on their motorcycle. As soon as, the car reached under the bridge of Mallipur situated at GT Road, in the meantime, the accused motorcyclists, at once, came in front of their car. The remaining accused were already present there in police uniform. Accused Gurarpan Chauhan s/o Surinder Pal was wearing the uniform of Sub Inspector, whereas accused Amit Kumar, Saheb Chandel and Sonu Chaurasia were in Punjab police uniform. They suddenly stopped and asked the driver to show the documents of the car. The accused were armed with deadly weapons, arms and ammunition. They thrashed the victim Munish Kumar and Him Lal and forcibly put them in their white coloured Swift car, bearing registration No.PB -10 -DA -0665 and had driven away the car towards Khanna side. Munish Kumar tried to raise alarm and make a phone call to his father. Thereafter, accused Sonu Chaurasia gave a kirch blow on his neck. He (Munish Kumar) had caught hold the kirch, whereupon his both hands suffered cuts and his clothes were smeared with blood. The accused had put monkey caps on their faces. They took them to some Farm house and demanded a ransom of Rs. 5 crores from complainant Harminder Pal, father of Munish Kumar. Faced with the grave situation, the complainant paid the indicated ransom amount to the accused. Thereafter, they freed Munish Kumar and Him Lal from their illegal detention on the night intervening 14/15.7.2013.

(2.) SEQUELLY , the case of the prosecution further proceeds that the petitioner had twice come to the Farm house (place of occurrence), who is already known to Munish Kumar. She had repeated conversation with the main accused from the very inception of the crime through SMS and telephone calls and partner in the amount of ransom.

(3.) LEVELING a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events in detail, in all, the prosecution, inter -alia, claimed that the petitioner and her other indicated co -accused, have hatched a deep -rooted criminal conspiracy, kidnapped Munish Kumar, son and Him Lal, driver, of the complainant for ransom, illegally detained, caused injuries, attempted to murder, threatened them with dire consequences of elimination in case the ransom amount was not paid to the accused and having received the ransom amount of Rs. 5 crores, they released the victim from their illegal detention. In the backgrounds of these allegations and in the wake of statement of the complainant, the present criminal case was registered against the accused, vide FIR No.72 dated 14.7.2013 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 148, 307, 323, 324, 364 - A, 171, 120 -B, 506, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201 read with Section 149 IPC, Section 25 of the Arms Act and Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 by the police of Police Station Doraha, District Ludhiana, in the manner depicted here -in -above.