Crl. Misc. No. M-15874 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-15874 of 2009 Date of decision: August 07, 2009 Subhash -Petitioner Versus State of Haryana -Respondent Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta Present: Mr. SN Pillania, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Dhir, AAG, Haryana. Rajan Gupta, J.(Oral) This is a petition for regular bail in FIR No. 422 dated 26-9-2006 registered against the petitioner under Section 392 IPC and Sections 25/54/59 of Arms Act at police station Sadar Karnal. Allegations in the FIR are that on 26-9-2006, Som Dutt complainant was coming with a cash of Rs. three lacs in a polythene bag. His jeep was stopped by three persons, who snatched the said amount on pistol point. Petitioner Subhash was declared a proclaimed offender. His presence could be secured only on 9-2-2009. Mr. Pillania has contended that the petitioner has undergone incarceration for sufficiently long period. According to him, allegations against the petitioner are vague and no useful purpose would be served by detaining him during trial and as such he be enlarged on bail. Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail submitting that the petitioner had absconded and remained at large for Crl. Misc. No. M-15874 of 2009 2 about 2½ years. According to him, there are four other cases of similar nature against the petitioner. Counsel has emphasized that in case the petitioner is enlarged on bail, possibility of his absconding again from trial cannot be ruled out. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. Admittedly, the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender and could be apprehended only after 2½ years from the date of crime. Challan is stated to have been presented before the trial Court and the trial has commenced. The petitioner is stated to be involved in four other cases of similar nature. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations levelled in the FIR and antecedents of the petitioner, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail. The petition is hereby dismissed. [Rajan Gupta] Judge August 07, 2009. 'ask'