IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-36665 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 12.03.2010. Naresh @Bholu. ...... PETITIONER Versus State of Haryana. ...... RESPONDENT CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Surender Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.M.Anand, Addl.A.G., Haryana. *** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed by Naresh @Bholu for regular bail under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR No.189 dated 12.06.2009 registered under Sections 392/395/412/34/120-B IPC read with Sections 25/54/59 of Arms Act, at P.S. Sadar, Gohana, Sonepat. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record. Briefly stated, the case of prosecution is that on 11.06.2009 complainant was taking two tractors, make Sonalika DI 35, being driven by him as both the tractors were joined. When he reached near village Chidana, Crl.Misc.No.M-36665 of 2009 at about 11.55 PM the tractors were stopped by a motorcycle of red colour on which three boys were travelling. Those boys threatened the complainant at a point of pistol that if he would raise the alarm, he would be done to death. Both the tractors were robbed by them. On 04.07.2009, the complainant made supplementary statement against accused Sandeep, Manjit, Vicky & Jogender and tractor make Sonalika DI 35 was recovered and one country made pistol was also recovered from Sandeep. Another motorcycle belonging to present petitioner has been recovered. The present petitioner was arrested on 09.07.2009 and since then he has been continuing in custody. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case and that his motorcycle has been falsely involved in this case lateron. It has further been contended that in fact, motorcycle belonging to co-accused was used for committing the alleged robbery/dacoity and that motorcycle belonging to him was involved lateron without any basis. It has been contended that offence under Section 395 is not made out. Bail application has been vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the State on the plea that it came during investigation that motorcycle belonging to the present petitioner was also used in the crime and that petitioner alongwith motorcycle kept standing at some distance from the place of occurrence just to facilitate the crime and that in fact, one of the tractors was driven by him from the place of occurrence. It is further contended that said tractor has not been recovered so far. It is further contended that total eight accused are involved in this case and that offence under Section 395 was added lateron. It is further contended that petitioner is likely to abscond and likely to dissuade the witnesses from disclosing true 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-36665 of 2009 facts if released on bail. Hence, keeping in view these facts and without expressing anything on the merit of the case, I am of the view that it is not a fit case in which concession of bail should be granted to petitioner – accused. Petitioner alongwith co-accused is involved in highway robbery/dacoity. Hence, the instant application for bail filed by Naresh @Bholu is dismissed being devoid of merit. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) March 12, 2010. JUDGE 'om' 3