Wheelchair-Using Accused In Alleged Iran Kidnapping Gets Bail After Over 15 Months In Custody, With Probe Complete

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in an FIR alleging offences including Section 140(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 13 of the Punjab Travel Professionals (Regulation) Act, 2014.

The FIR arose from allegations that agents took money from three young men to arrange travel to Australia; the men were allegedly routed through Dubai to Iran, where they were detained and a ransom was demanded.

The petitioner was not named in the FIR but was later implicated through statements recorded during investigation.

The investigation against him was completed and the challan presented, while certain co-accused remained unarrested.

An earlier bail order had not addressed Section 140(2) BNS; subsequent applications and proceedings were dismissed or withdrawn, leading to the present petition.

The petitioner relied, among other matters, on his disability, time in custody, completed investigation, and delay expected in concluding trial; the State opposed bail, citing the allegations and another pending case.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, empowers the High Court to grant regular bail.

Section 140(2) BNS, as described by the Court, is punishable with death or imprisonment for life.

The Court applied the principle that the gravity of an alleged offence is a relevant consideration but cannot, by itself, justify continued custody where the circumstances otherwise support bail; it also considered the stage of investigation and trial, time in custody, the petitioner’s circumstances, and the position of co-accused.

No judicial precedent was cited.

The Court treated the earlier bail order as not having determined the petitioner’s entitlement to bail under Section 140(2) BNS, because that provision had not been included in the earlier petition; it therefore considered the issue afresh.

Although the allegations attributed a role to the petitioner, he was not named in the FIR, and the extent of his connection to the alleged kidnapping and ransom demand remained to be determined at trial.

The Court also noted that a co-accused had received anticipatory bail and another had interim bail, that the petitioner’s investigation was complete, and that trial was at an early stage with a supplementary challan still pending against co-accused.

It considered the petitioner’s reported 60% permanent lower-limb disability and custody of more than one year and three months, and concluded that continued detention would serve no useful purpose.

The prosecution may seek cancellation of bail if the petitioner is found involved in a subsequent case; the Court’s observations were confined to the bail decision and were not to affect the merits of the trial.