JUDGMENT S.S. Saron, J.:- Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered against him on 22.3.2010 for the offences under Sections 364-A, 365, 506, 148 and 149 IPC; besides, Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. 3. The FIR has been recorded by Dhian Singh SI on an information received on telephone from Veer Bhan alleging that Puneet Bansal son of Sat Pal Bansal had been kidnapped. It is alleged that on 22.3.2010 at about 8.30 p.m., he (Dhian Singh SI) was present at the Police Station and a phone call was received that in the area of Water Works, Mansa, Nirmal Singh @ Babri son of Karnail Singh, Satpal son of Harnek Singh, Saurabh @ Rinku son of Parshottam, Gurpreet Singh @ Mota son of Gurdeep Singh, Kuldeep Singh @ Deepa son of Hardev Singh Mehra, residents of Ward-4, Mansa, Kala @ Bir Bahadur, Sukhdev Singh Sarpanch, residents of Bhathua, Sonu, DK, residents of Rohtak, Motu resident of Lehragaga, Vicky resident of Nangal Kalan and Harvinder Singh resident of Dhade, were standing there. They had deadly weapons. They got on to a grey-coloured Scorpio vehicle bearing No.HR 56 7222. Besides, two unknown persons aged about 20-22 years of the height of 5’6-7", clean shaven, wheatish complexion were also there and one of them had an injury mark on his head. The other had spot marks on his face. They got on to a TVS Superstar motorcycle. They all in a secret manner had abducted Puneet Bansal son of Satpal Bansal, resident of Water Works, Mansa for the purpose of ransom and with an intention to kill him. On receipt of the information, FIR 67 dated 22.3.2010 was registered at PS City Mansa for the offences under Sections 364-A, 365, 148 and 149 IPC; besides, Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. Investigations in the case were started. The PCR (Police Control Room) Mansa was intimated on wireless message to set up a check post. The FIR was registered against the aforesaid accused persons. 4. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is not named in the FIR. Investigations in the case were started. The PCR (Police Control Room) Mansa was intimated on wireless message to set up a check post. The FIR was registered against the aforesaid accused persons. 4. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is not named in the FIR. It is submitted that the prosecution case is that the petitioner was arrested on 24.3.2010 at the time when ransom amount was being paid; however, the co-accused of the petitioner namely Mandeep Kumar who was also arrested, has been granted regular bail by this Court on 11.5.2011. Besides, keeping in view the fact that the name of the petitioner is not in the FIR, it is quite evident that he was implicated in the case lateron. It is submitted that nothing is to be recovered from the him. Moreover, the petitioner has no criminal background and he is a student. A reference has been made to a copy of the IInd Semester Mechanical Engineering Diploma Examination Certificate, held in September 2007 (P1), which was conducted by the State Board of Technical Education, Haryana. It is submitted that even though Criminal Misc M- 26886 of 2010 has been dismissed earlier on 16.9.2010; however, thereafter his other co-accused who were similarly placed, had been granted the concession of bail by this Court and the Court of learned Addl Sessions Judge, Mansa. It is submitted that another Criminal Misc M 37234 of 2010 was filed by the petitioner for the grant of interim bail, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 3.1.2011 as the prayer for interim relief had become infructuous. 5. In response, learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner is involved in the kidnapping of Puneet Bansal for the purposes of ransom and he was apprehended in the case. Besides, it is submitted that Puneet Bansal has stated the manner in which he was kidnapped. 6. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the petitioner is not one of the persons who are named in the FIR. He is in custody since 24.3.2010. The prosecution has cited 13 witnesses and till date, none has been examined. The case is fixed before the trial Court for framing of charges on 6.6.2011. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the petitioner is not one of the persons who are named in the FIR. He is in custody since 24.3.2010. The prosecution has cited 13 witnesses and till date, none has been examined. The case is fixed before the trial Court for framing of charges on 6.6.2011. The co-accused of the petitioner namely Mandeep Kumar has been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 11.5.2011 passed in Criminal Misc M-10510 of 2011. It was noticed by this Court in the case of Mandeep Kumar (supra) that he was not named in the FIR and was implicated on the basis of a disclosure statement made by the co-accused. He was arrested on 1.4.2010 and was in custody since then. No other case was pending against the said petitioner – Mandeep Kumar. It may also be noticed that Vicky son of Sukhdev Singh has been granted regular bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa vide order dated 2.5.2011. Besides, Nathu Singh has been granted regular bail by the learned Addl Sessions Judge, Mansa vide order dated 16.5.2011. Kuldeep Singh and Gurpreet Singh have also been granted regular bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Mansa vide order dated 21.5.2011. 7. Therefore, even though the earlier petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by this Court on 16.9.2010, it would be just and expedient to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner as his co-accused have been granted the concession of bail. Besides, the petitioner is in custody since 24.3.2010 and the trial in the case has not commenced; even charges have not been framed so far. 8. In the circumstances, this petition is allowed and the petitioner, on his furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of learned CJM, Mansa, shall be admitted to regular bail. ---------0.B.S.0------------