Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Regular Bail in Kidnapping and Ransom Case After Noting Long Custody and Trial Delay
Case Name: Harish and Moinddin @ Moin @ Muinuddin vs. State of Haryana
Date of Judgment: 12 November 2025
Citation: CRM-M-53968-2025 & CRM-M-59366-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Vashisth
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail to both petitioners, holding that they had remained in custody for more than three years, several key prosecution witnesses including the complainant and the minor victim had already been examined, and the trial was likely to take considerable time due to a long list of 28 remaining witnesses. The Court also noted that the child was recovered unharmed the day after the kidnapping and that a similarly placed co-accused had already been granted bail. In these circumstances, continued detention was found unwarranted.
Summary: The FIR was registered alleging that a ten-year-old child was forcibly abducted by masked persons in a Wagon-R vehicle and that ransom of ₹25,00,000 was later demanded through mobile and WhatsApp communication. During investigation, Sections 364-A, 420, 506, 120-B, 109 and 412 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act were added. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners were part of the group that planned and executed the kidnapping, used a car with a forged number plate, and later shared ransom money. The State opposed bail, submitting that ransom was paid, recoveries were made from the petitioners, and their involvement was confirmed during investigation.
The petitioners argued that the FIR did not initially name them, that the victim was recovered the next morning without harm, and that the subsequent addition of offences exaggerated the allegations. It was further submitted that the petitioners were already acquitted in other cases and had no prior convictions. The custody certificates placed on record showed incarceration of more than three years, and evidence indicated that the case was progressing slowly.
Decision: The petitions were allowed. The Court directed that both petitioners be released on bail subject to conditions including execution of surety bonds and compliance with directions of the trial Court. It was clarified that the petitioners shall not threaten or influence witnesses and that the order would stand automatically cancelled if they were found involved in similar offences in future. The Court also clarified that observations made were only for the purpose of deciding bail and would not affect the merits of the trial.