JUDGMENT : PARTH PRATEEM SAHU, J. 1. As above applications arise out of same crime number, they are being heard together and decided by this common order. 2. These are first applications under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to applicants, who are in custody since 9.7.2021 in connection with Crime No. 97/2021 registered at Police Station Somni, District Rajnandgaon (CG) for commission of offence under Sections 394, 386, 365, 395, 397, 398, 342, 364(A), 34 of IPC and Section 25, 27 of Arms Act. 3. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 9.7.2021 at about 9:45 a.m. applicant Somesh Vaishnav gave mobile call to complainant, called him stating that he will repay loan amount to him. When complainant reached the place as intimated by applicant Somesh, accused persons including present applicants forcibly put him inside a car and took him away. Accused persons assaulted complainant in running car and demanded ransom of Rs. 30 Lakhs from him. In next morning at about 11:00 a.m. applicant gave mobile call to his friend by name Rajesh Sahu asking him help of Rs. 30 Lakhs, to which Rajesh Sahu stated that he can arrange only Rs. 10 Lakh, upon which complainant called him near Sahu Dhaba. Rajesh Sahu along with one Khilesh Dewangan reached at agreed place i.e. Sahu Dhaba, and made a call to complainant, whereupon accused persons came to Sahu Dhaba to collect money from Rajesh Sahu but he refused to give money to them saying that he will give money only to complainant and not others. Thereafter complainant along with one co-accused came to Sahu Dhaba where Rajesh Sahu and Khilesh Dewangan were sitting, Rajesh Sahu tried to handover cheque of Rs. 10 Lakh to accused persons, but they refused to accept and took away complainant in car. On suspicion, Khilesh Dewangan reported the matter to concerned police station. When accused persons came to know that police are enquiring from owner of car in which they took complainant with them, they left complainant near Imam Chowk, Rajnandgaon after removing his clothes. Thereafter complainant lodged FIR in concerned police station on 9.7.2021 based upon which aforementioned crime is registered against applicants and two others. 4. Mr. When accused persons came to know that police are enquiring from owner of car in which they took complainant with them, they left complainant near Imam Chowk, Rajnandgaon after removing his clothes. Thereafter complainant lodged FIR in concerned police station on 9.7.2021 based upon which aforementioned crime is registered against applicants and two others. 4. Mr. Arun K Shukla, learned counsel for applicant Somesh Vaishnav in M.Cr.C. No. 8330/2021 would submit that applicant has been falsely implicated in crime because there was some loan transaction between him and complainant. It has come in memorandum statement of applicant that applicant has taken loan of Rs. 6 Lakh from complainant, out of which he repaid only Rs. 1 Lakh, therefore, in order to put pressure upon him for return of loan amount, complainant lodged false report by levelling false allegations. 5. Mr. Yogesh Pandey and Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocates for applicants Yogesh Devangan and Indal Yadav in M.Cr.C. Nos. 8674/2021 and 9007/2021 respectively, would submit that absolutely false and baseless allegations are levelled against applicants. These applicants have been made accused in aforementioned crime based on memorandum statement of co-accused Somesh Vaishnav. As per complaint, accused persons have covered their face, hence complainant could not have identified them, but on the basis of memorandum statement of co-accused Somesh, complainant identified present applicants in test identification parade. They also pointed out that if allegations of such grievous offence are there, then complainant, who was left in evening on 5.7.2021, as stated by complainant, could have lodged report before the police or any other authority immediately after his release, but report is lodged after lapse of more than three days i.e. on 9.7.2021. Hence it prima facie shows that allegations levelled against applicants are concocted and based on cooked-up story. Applicants are in jail since 9.7.2021, hence they may be enlarged on regular bail. 6. On other hand, Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes submissions of learned counsel for respective applicants and submits that not only complainant in written report has made allegations against applicants, but allegation of demand of ransom stands corroborated from the statement of one Rajesh Sahu recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein he stated that on 5.7.2021 complainant called him on his mobile and requested for making arrangement of Rs. 30 Lakhs. 30 Lakhs. She also pointed out that this witness in his statement has categorically stated that after reaching agreed place i.e. Sahu Dhaba, along with Khilesh Dewangan, he gave mobile call to complainant and thereafter complainant along with one of accused persons came near to him, when he tried to give cheque, they refused to accept and returned back with complainant. Similar statement is made by Khilesh Dewangan. She submits that police based on details of car traced its owner and only thereafter complainant was released by accused persons. Hence, applicants are not entitled for grant of regular bail. 7. I have heard learned counsel for parties. 8. Taking into consideration nature of allegations, manner in which aforementioned crime is stated to have been committed by applicants, as mentioned in complaint; statement of Rajesh Sahu and Khilesh Dewangan, I do not find it to be a fit case where applicants can be enlarged on regular bail. 9. Accordingly, bail applications are rejected.