CRM No. M-1890 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-1890 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.03.2009 Satender @ Gallad ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Jai Vir Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Senior DAG, Haryana. Rajan Gupta, J. This is a petition praying for grant of regular bail in a case bearing FIR No.382 dated 28.10.2006, registered under Sections 332, 353, 307, 223, 224, 225 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act at Police Station Manesar, District Gurgaon. The FIR was registered on the allegation that when an undertrial namely Anand alias Antu was being taken to Gurgaon Jail after being produced in Kishangarh court, his associates managed to free him by assaulting and firing at the police party. The petitioner is alleged to be following in a Honda City car for the purpose of helping his co- accused in committing the crime. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is not named in the FIR, no test-identification parade was held and the petitioner was arrested on 11.12.2006 on the basis of his own disclosure statement in another case i.e. FIR No.94 of 2006, registered CRM No. M-1890 of 2009 2 at Police Station Special Cell, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi on 8.12.2006. This statement, according to the counsel, is inadmissible in evidence. Learned counsel for the State has, however, vehemently opposed the bail application and has stated that the allegations against the petitioner are very serious in nature. At the time, the undertrial was freed from the police custody, the petitioner was following in another vehicle. Co-accused of the petitioner fired 2/3 rounds towards the police. One of the constables namely, Ramesh Chand was hit in the stomach as a result of the shot fired. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case and the allegations against the petitioner, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to him. According to the prosecution, the petitioner played an active role in the commission of the crime. The argument of the counsel for the petitioner that evidence against the petitioner is inadmissible, is not tenable at this stage. There is no ground for grant of bail to the petitioner. Hence, the petition is dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE March 19, 2009 'rajpal'