IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-24234 of 2009 Date of decision : November 17, 2009 Suresh Kumar ....Petitioner versus State of Haryana ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Vivek Khatri, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Sidharth Sarup, AAG Haryana L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Suresh Kumar has filed this petition for bail in case FIR No. 76 dated 29.2.2004 under sections 307, 380, 409 and 120-B IPC and 25 of Arms Act, Police Station Safidon, District Jind. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. According to the prosecution version, naka was held by the police on getting information that the petitioner and his co-accused were going to sell government wheat after stealing it and were carrying it in a canter. On signal of police party, canter driver did not stop the canter. The petitioner who was sitting on the wheat bags in the canter fired on the police party. However, no police official was hurt. The canter was got stopped by over-taking it in police jeep. The petitioner succeeded in escaping from Criminal Misc. No. M-24234 of 2009 -2- the spot. The petitioner was declared proclaimed offender on 15.6.2004. He was arrested on 29.6.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner was not aware of the case pending against him and on coming to know of it, he surrendered himself. It was also argued that the petitioner's co-accused have already been acquitted. Learned State counsel on the other hand contended that it was the petitioner who had fired at the police party. He also contended that the petitioner remained proclaimed offender for five years having absconded from the process of law. As noticed hereinabove, the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender on 15.6.2004. He was arrested on 29.6.2009 i.e. after lapse of five years. It was the petitioner who allegedly fired at the police party. Acquittal of petitioner's co-accused is of no help to the petitioner at this stage because specific role has been attributed to the petitioner himself. The petitioner fired at the police party. Moreover, the fact that the petitioner remained absconding for more than five years also disentitles him to the benefit of bail. In view of the aforesaid but without commenting anything on merits, the instant bail petition is dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) November 17, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'