Raghav Bansal Alias Bunny v. State Of Punjab

Sr. No.244

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 29th May 2025 RAGHAV BANSAL ALIAS BUNNY ........Petitioner versus STATE OF PUNJAB .......Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN

Present:

Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG, Punjab.

HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, J. (ORAL) 1.

The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail in case FIR No.114 dated 18.04.2025, under Sections 140(3), 308(2), 351(1), 351(3), 3(5) of BNS, 2023, registered at Police Station Sadar Kharar, District SAS Nagar (Annexure P-1).

2.

As per the prosecution version, on 17.04.2025, the complainant received a call from the mobile phone of his son, aged about 19 years, who is a student of Chandigarh University, Mohali, stating that his son has been kidnapped and he has to arrange for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. The son of the complainant requested his mother on the phone call to arrange for the said amount. On the same day at about 8:49 PM, the son of the complainant again called his mother and informed her that four boys, who came in a white-coloured Creta Car bearing No.PB-12-AE-1091, have kidnapped him from the University. Out of them, one was the petitioner-Raghav Bansal, who is the owner of the car. Another boy was named Purav and they were

 also studying in the same college. He further informed that the petitioner, along with his co-accused, had dropped him on the side of the canal at Ropar and they fled away. The son of the complainant was thrashed and his indecent video was recovered.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the FIR was lodged due to some misunderstanding. However, now a compromise has been effected between the parties. The petitioner is a young student and he is in custody since 21.04.2025. Even the complainant has submitted an affidavit dated 20.05.2025 admitting the fact that the FIR was lodged due to some misunderstanding.

4.

Learned State counsel has filed custody certificate of the petitioner dated 29.05.2025, reflecting his actual custody period as 01 month and 08 days, which is taken on record.

4.1 Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition on the ground of gravity of allegations levelled against the petitioner. However, has confirmed that during investigation, no video of the son of the complainant has been recovered, as alleged by the complainant in the FIR. 5.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.

6.

The petitioner is a young student of 25 years of age. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody since 21.04.2025. The conclusion of the trial is likely to take time. There is no apprehension of absconding of the petitioner during the trial. 7.

Keeping in view the above facts and also in view of the fact that the parties want to bury the hatchet, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his/her

 furnishing adequate bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

8.

However, it is made clear that nothing expressed hereinabove would be construed to be an expression of opinion on merits of the case. 9.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

(HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN) JUDGE 29th May 2025 simran Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No