Crl. Misc. No. M-30099 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-30099 of 2011 Date of Decision : December 07, 2011 Imran .... Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Salim Ahmed, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Senior DAG, Haryana. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Accused Imran has filed this petition for regular bail in case FIR No.193 dated 25.05.2011, under Sections 149, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC) (Section 307 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act added later on), registered at Police Station Sohna, District Gurgaon. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. According to FIR, shots from fire arms were fired by Crl. Misc. No. M-30099 of 2011 2 petitioner's co-accused and not by the petitioner. However, petitioner allegedly made disclosure statement that he had also fired shot. The petitioner is in custody since 31.07.2011 i.e. for more than four months. Investigation has already been completed and challan presented. Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Mohan Singh, stated that the petitioner is involved in four other cases. However, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is on bail in the said four cases. Learned State counsel, on instructions, further stated that except disclosure/confessional statement of the petitioner, that he had also fired shot in the occurrence, there is no other evidence regarding firing of shot by the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner also contended that regarding the same occurrence, petitioner's side lodged FIR No.192 dated 25.05.2011 for various offences including offence under Section 307 IPC and in that case, offence under Section 376 (2) (g) IPC has also been added regarding gang rape of wife of petitioner's brother. Learned State counsel, after seeking instructions, does not controvert this factual position, but contended that injury on the side of petitioner, was found to be self- inflicted, although investigation is still going on. Keeping in view all the circumstances including the role attributed to the petitioner in the occurrence and the cross-version, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner deserves the concession of bail. Crl. Misc. No. M-30099 of 2011 3 Accordingly, the instant bail petition is allowed. Bail to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate, Gurgaon. December 07, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE