JUDGMENT Gurdev Singh, J.:- Heard. 2. Vide this order I propose to dispose of the above noticed petitions filed under Section 439(1) of the Code of Criminal procedure by Bijender @ Kala and Pawan Kumar, petitioners for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 181 dated 24.4.2008 under Sections 307, 342, 365,392, 397 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code registered in Police Station Chandni Bagh, Panipat. 3. Both these petitioners are standing their trial before Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat. They have come up with the plea that they have been falsely implicated and their names do not figure in the FIR. It is also one of the grounds that the co-accused were tried for these offences and were acquitted by the trial court. 4. The FIR was got lodged by Sunita @ Salma-complainant. She narrated therein that after divorcing her previous husband, she contracted second marriage with Nawab Ali in the month of January 2008 and had been living with him as a tenant in Shiv Nagar, Panipat. On 24.4.2008, she received a telephonic call from a lady, who disclosed that she was her friend and wanted to meet her after coming to Panipat. The second telephonic call was received from the side of that lady, who disclosed that they were standing on Gohana turn and that she should pick them up from that place. Her husband went to that place, where one lady of 32 years of age, one girl of 17 years old and a boy aged about 22-23 years met him and they came to their house in Innova No. DL-4C AE 3150. That girl and the lady went out of the house to urinate and two boys entered in their house and closed the door and started beating her and her husband. At the pistol point, they were asked to sit in the vehicle and were abducted by those accused. The accused was signaled to stop on the turn of Gohana by the police. After the driver stopped the vehicle, she herself and her husband told the traffic police constable that three accused were abducting them. Thereafter, one of the accused, who was a boy, ran away and fired at the traffic police constable. 5. The accused was signaled to stop on the turn of Gohana by the police. After the driver stopped the vehicle, she herself and her husband told the traffic police constable that three accused were abducting them. Thereafter, one of the accused, who was a boy, ran away and fired at the traffic police constable. 5. These petitioners could not be arrested during investigation and were declared as proclaimed offenders after the Warrants of arrest, issued against them, were received back with the report that they were avoiding the execution thereof. Other accused; Sushila and Vikas, were tried by the Court of Sh. A.K.Jain, Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, and were acquitted as the complainant and her husband turned volte-face and resiled from their previous statement. 6. The prosecution is relying upon the same evidence against the present petitioner. No doubt, the constable, who was fired at, namely Rishpal, had named Vikas as the accused, who fired at him but that accused already stands acquitted 7. No doubt the petitioners were declared as proclaimed offenders and were never arrested in this FIR but nothing has been brought on the record to show that they had the knowledge of registration of the FIR against them or about the proceedings being taken against them in the Court. 8. Keeping in view the above discussed circumstances and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, they are ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Petitions are disposed of accordingly. --------------------