BNSS is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner dated 17.04.2025, registered at Police Station Narwana City, District Jind, under Sections 61(2) of BNS. 2. custody for name of petitioner statement of petitioner delay of 2 days in lodging the FIR. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner 17.04.2025, registered at Police Station Narwana City, District Jind, under Sections 115(2), 117(2), 126(2), 127(2), 140(2), 308(6), 351(3) and 61(2) of BNS. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner custody for 9 months and 14 days. They allege false implication. name of petitioner-Sandeep Singh surfaced based on the dis statement of petitioner-Reena, who was named in the FIR. delay of 2 days in lodging the FIR. Prayer in the present petitions filed under Section 483 of is for grant of regular bail to the petitioners in case FIR No.96 17.04.2025, registered at Police Station Narwana City, District Jind, 117(2), 126(2), 127(2), 140(2), 308(6), 351(3) and Learned counsel contends that the petitioners have been in 9 months and 14 days. They allege false implication. The surfaced based on the disclosure who was named in the FIR. There is a PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.02.03 18:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. Reliance is placed on the judgment passed by Hon'ble The Supreme Court titled as Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382. 3. The custody certificates dated 02.02.2026, filed by the learned State counsel are taken on record. As per the same, the petitioners are behind bars for 9 months and 14 days. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that there are specific allegations against petitioner-Reena that she had conspired with other co-accused for abducting the complainant for the purpose of ransom. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage of the case; co-accused having been released on bail and petitioner-Reena being not involved in any other case whereas petitioner- Heard. 6. Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi (Supra)had held that, “As observed by the High Court, PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.02.03 18:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court, etc.” 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that the petitioners are in custody for the last 9 months and 14 days; petitioner-Reena not involved in any other case while petitioner- Sandeep being on bail in other cases; co-accused is on bail; charges were framed on 25.08.2025, however, only 1 PW has been examined and there are still 21 more to go; the trial is likely to take a considerable time, further incarceration of the petitioner would be violative of their right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the present petitions are allowed. 8. The petitioners are ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case and shall abide by the following conditions:- (i) The petitioners will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The petitioners will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The petitioners will appear before the trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific order of Court. (iv) The petitioners shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which, they are PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.02.03 18:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. accused, or for commission of which they are suspected of. (v) The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly coerce, induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner. (vi) The petitioners shall not in any manner misuse his liberty. (vii) The petitioners shall furnish their addresses and mobile number by way of affidavits to the trial Court and not change the same till conclusion of trial and if for any reasons, they seek to change either of the aforesaid, it shall be done only with prior information to the learned trial Court. (viii) The petitioners shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial Court. (ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other condition, as deemed appropriate while releasing the petitioners. 9. It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as granted to the petitioners by this order. 10. In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein above are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would not be construed as any opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of the aforesaid observations. 11. Photocopy of this order be placed on the connected file(s). PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.02.03 18:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.