Crl.M.No.M-16674 of 2009 -1 - IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl.M.No.M-16674 of 2009 Date of Decision: 14.7.2009 Ashok ..Petitioner. Vs. State of Haryana ..Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present : Mr.Amit Parashar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Partap Singh, Sr.DAG Haryana for respondent. Mr.Vikas Kumar, Advocate for the complainant. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. ( Oral) Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has filed a bail application in a case registered vide FIR No.121 dated 31.5.2009 under Sections 148/149/323/324/307 IPC and 25/54/59 of Arms Act at Police Station Sadar Ballabgarh, District Faridabad. The allegations against the petitioner are that on 31.5.2009 in the company of some other persons, who were armed with fire arms, he caused injuries to complainant Satvender with a knife and had fired a shot at him. Before coming to this Court, the petitioner had applied for bail vide application No.137 of 2009, which has been dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad on 13.6.2009. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that petitioner has been involved in a cross case. It is submitted that a case has been registered by his mother Maya widow of Indraj vide FIR No.134 dated 13.6.2009 with regard to an occurrence which Crl.M.No.M-16674 of 2009 -2 - took place on 13.6.2009. Delay in lodging FIR has been explained as initially the FIR was not registered by the police then mother of the petitioner filed an application to the SSP but that was also gone in vain but ultimately, in a proceeding under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. the said FIR was registered. The petitioner has joined the investigation but no interim bail was granted by this Court. Counsel for the complainant as well as counsel for the State have argued almost in a similar manner that not only recovery of the weapons i.e. pistol and knife has to be effected but also the petitioner is a known bad character of the area who is facing two cases registered vide FIR No.402 of 2007 registered under Sections 323, 324,452, 506/34 IPC, P.S.City Ballabgarh and FIR No.205 of 2004 under Section 379 IPC at P.S. Chandhat. Keeping in view the antecedents of the petitioner and the fact that recovery is yet to be effected, besides the nature of the offence committed, I do not find it to be a fit case for the purpose of extending extra ordinary concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Dismissed. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) 14.7.2009 Judge Meenu