Cr.Misc. M 12166 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Cr.Misc. M 12166 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : 22.1.2009 Sanjeev ......PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana ......RESPONDENT PRESENT: Mr. SS Narula, Advocate Mr. SS Goripuria, DAG, Hry M.M.S.BEDI,J. The petitioner along with three others is alleged to have fired at Satyawan, who was a witness in a murder case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the three witnesses of the occurrence have already turned hostile. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is apparent that the main witness Ashok Kumar has supported the prosecution version. It will not be appropriate for this court to appreciate his statement to find out its veracity. Learned counsel for the petitioner has next contended that the petitioner has been in custody since 9.4.2007 and in view of the observations of this court in Dalip Singh Vs. State of Punjab (Cr.Appeal 132 DB of 2007) decided on 19.12.2088, the petitioner should have been granted the concession of bail as the evidence could not be concluded within 180 days and the trial court had not considered the matter in context to the observations in the Dalip Singh's case (supra). The order dated 19.12.2008, relied upon by the counsel for Cr.Misc. M 12166 of 2008 2 the petitioner came into operation after the trial court had already decided the application for bail. On merits, I do not find any ground to grant the concession of bail to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to get the benefit of the above said judgment by moving an application before the trial court. It goes without saying that there is no bar for the petitioner to move any such application. Disposed of in the above terms. January 22 ,2009 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE