JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.: (Oral) - This order shall dispose of four petitions namely, CRM-M-9084 of 2011 titled as “Gagandeep Singh @ Gagni Vs. State of Punjab” (hereinafter referred as Ist petition), CRM-M-9238 of 2011 titled as “Baljit Singh Vs. State of Punjab” (hereinafter referred as IInd petition), CRM-M-13039 of 2011 titled as “Jasbir Singh alias Kaka Vs. State of Punjab” (hereinafter referred as IIIrd petition) and CRM-M-9471 of 2011 titled as “Jaskaran Singh @ Sabbi Vs. State of Punjab” (hereinafter referred as IVth petition) in which the petitioners have prayed for bail pending trial in a case registered vide FIR No.25 dated 17.05.2010 under Section 364-A/120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 25/54/59 of Arms Act at Police Station Cantonment Amritsar. 2. The allegations against the petitioners are of kidnapping one Gurinderbir Singh for ransom, who though was recovered by the Police hale and hearty without any injury but not from the possession of the petitioners, who alleged to have ran away after seeing the Police. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, who is arguing Ist and IInd petition, has submitted that he had earlier applied for bail which was withdrawn on 27.9.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner, who is arguing IVth petition, also states that he had also withdrawn his earlier petition for bail on 6.10.2010 whereas learned counsel for the petitioner, who is arguing IIIrd petition, has submitted that he has applied for bail for the first time. 4. In the Ist and IInd petition, petitioners are in custody since 29.5.2010, in IIIrd petition, petitioner is in custody since 29.5.2010 and in IVth petition, petitioner is in custody since 20.5.2010. 5. Learned counsels for the petitioners submit that in this case no ransom has ever been paid to the petitioners. 6. Admittedly, the complainant Rajinder Kaur and the kidnapped boy Gurinderbir Singh have already been examined by the prosecution and there are 22 more witnesses, who are yet to be examined. 7. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the petitioners have committed heinous crime for which they do not deserve concession of bail whereas there is no dispute that the petitioners are neither previous convict nor any other case is pending against them. 8. 7. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the petitioners have committed heinous crime for which they do not deserve concession of bail whereas there is no dispute that the petitioners are neither previous convict nor any other case is pending against them. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case but without making any observation on the merits, all the petitions namely, CRM-M-9084 of 2011 titled as “Gagandeep Singh @ Gagni Vs. State of Punjab”, CRM-M-9238 of 2011 titled as “Baljit Singh Vs. State of Punjab”, CRM-M-13039 of 2011 titled as “Jasbir Singh alias Kaka Vs. State of Punjab” and CRM-M-9471 of 2011 titled as “Jaskaran Singh @ Sabbi Vs. State of Punjab” are hereby allowed. The Petitioners are directed to be released on bail on their furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. 9. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other connected cases. --------------