JUDGMENT S.S. Saron, J.:- Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners seek regular bail in a case registered against them for the offences under Sections 364 and 34 Indian Penal Code. 3. The FIR in the case has been registered on the complaint of Rajpal Singh. It is alleged by the complainant-Rajpal Singh that he does the work of labour. About six months earlier to the registration of FIR he had entered into a contract with Jitu son of Pappu, Kalu son of Ramji and Mohinder Singh (accused) son of Bakshi Ram of his village. The contract was to cut Pudina (Mint) in 12 acres of land in Village Dhanur @ Rs.1800/- per acre and also cut 2 acres of land in Gaus Garh @ Rs.2,000/- per acre. Mohinder Singh (accused) was to be given Rs.8,000/- as his share. However, the complainant had given Rs.4,000/- only and Rs.4,000/- balance was to be given. Mohinder Singh had many times come to take his money, which the complainant had spent. Therefore, the complainant was dodging Mohinder Singh but he could not arrange the money to be given. Mohinder Singh about ten days earlier to the FIR came to the house of the complainant to get his money and the complainant informed him that he did not yet have money and whenever he has the money then he would himself come to his house and give the money. Mohinder Singh while leaving had threatened him that if he did not return his money within a week then he would kill his son. The complainant was unable to give the money within a week. On the date of the incident i.e. 22.11.2008 the complainant along with his wife Gurinder Kaur were present in the compound of their house. Their son Krish aged 2½ years was playing in the street near the gate in front of their house. The time would be about 3.00 p.m. when they heard the noise of a child crying. The complainant and his wife ran outside and saw that Mohinder Singh was carrying a ‘Kirch’. Kindhu and Vicky residents of Village Rattewala were also accompanying Mohinder Singh. They were empty handed and were earlier known to the complainant. They had kidnapped his son Krish Virdi and fled in a white colour Tata Indica car towards river Sutlej. The complainant and his wife ran outside and saw that Mohinder Singh was carrying a ‘Kirch’. Kindhu and Vicky residents of Village Rattewala were also accompanying Mohinder Singh. They were empty handed and were earlier known to the complainant. They had kidnapped his son Krish Virdi and fled in a white colour Tata Indica car towards river Sutlej. The complainant and his wife raised an alarm and the neighbours gathered at their house. They chased the car till the river but the accused saved themselves and got away. The accused had kidnapped his son to kill him. The complainant along with Ex-Panch Jagroop Singh was coming to the Police Station to lodge the report that the Police party met him at the Charan Kanwal Chowk, Machhiwara and he got his statement recorded. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners are not named in the FIR and Vicky is not Varinder Kumar and Kindhu is not the accused Kulwant Singh. In any case, Mohinder Singh, who is the main accused, has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 18.4.2009 (Annexure-P.1). The petitioners, it is stated, are in custody since 23.11.2009. 5. In response, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the petitioners had actively participated in the kidnapping of Krish, the son of the complainant who was 2½ years of age. It is submitted that Vicky is the same person as Varinder Kumar (petitioner No.1) and Kindhu is the same person as Kulwinder Singh (petitioner No.2). 6. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter it may be noticed that the main accused in the case, namely, Mohinder Singh has been granted the concession of bail by this Court vide order dated 18.4.2009 (Annexure-P.1). It was observed that while issuing notice, the contention on behalf of the petitioner therein was noticed to the effect that the child of the complainant was recovered on the next day and that the petitioner therein, namely, Mohinder Singh had been falsely implicated due to the dispute over the amount, which was due to him (Mohinder Singh) for having rendered service in the field. It was also noticed that the charge in the case had been framed and the case was fixed for 23.4.2009 for recording prosecution evidence. The prosecution had cited 15 witnesses and the petitioner therein, namely, Mohinder Singh was in custody since 23.11.2008. It was also noticed that the charge in the case had been framed and the case was fixed for 23.4.2009 for recording prosecution evidence. The prosecution had cited 15 witnesses and the petitioner therein, namely, Mohinder Singh was in custody since 23.11.2008. Trial it was observed would take a long time to conclude. 7. The said facts and circumstances would apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case and also to the petitioners herein. They are also in custody since 23.11.2009. Besides, Mohinder Singh who is the main accused has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 18.4.2009 (Annexure-P.1). In the circumstances, the petitioners on their furnishing personal bonds and surety each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Magistrate shall be admitted to bail. The criminal miscellaneous petition stands disposed of. ----------------