CRM No. M-25474 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-25474 of 2011 Date of Decision : September 20, 2011 Anil Kumar son of Ramesh Chand .... PETITIONER Vs. State of Haryana ..... RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH * * * Present : Mr. V.K.Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. M.M.Sikka, DAG, Haryana. * * * AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not named in the FIR, however, he has been involved in the case on the basis of a disclosure statement. He is a Shopkeeper and is dealing in electrical goods and the recovery, which is made from the petitioner, is 20 Kg. of copper wires. He contends that the petitioner was arrested on 08.01.2011 and since then the petitioner is in custody. His further contention is that there is no identification mark in the copper wire, which has been recovered, as to whether it is from the transformers, which are alleged to have been of UHHBVN and is alleged to have been stolen. He contends that PW2 Pardeep Goyat, SDO (OP) Sub-Division, UHHBVN, CRM No. M-25474 of 2011 2 Jundla, has, in his cross-examination, stated that there is no identification mark scribed on the coils fitted in the transformers and, therefore, he contends that the copper wires recovered from the petitioner cannot be said to be the same from the transformers, which have been stolen. He further contends that all the witnesses are official and, therefore, the petitioner be granted the concession of bail. Counsel for the State, on instructions from SI Gajraj Singh, Police Station Assandh, states that seven witnesses have already been examined and three witnesses are yet to be examined and the next date of hearing is 24.09.2011. He, therefore, states that the concession of bail be not granted to the petitioner. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. In the light of the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 08.01.2011 and all the witnesses are official, there is no possibility of the petitioner's either tempering with the evidence or influencing the witnesses. Further as per the cross-examination of PW-2 Pardeep Goyat, it cannot be said that the recovery, which has been effected from the petitioner of the copper wires, was in fact taken out from the transformers, which are alleged to have been stolen of the UHHBVN. The trial is not likely to conclude soon and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by further keeping the petitioner in custody. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Any observations made in this order shall have no effect on the final decision before the case in the trial Court. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) September 20, 2011 JUDGE pj