In the Punjab and Haryana High Court, at Chandigarh. CRM-M-20776 of 2011 (O&M) Decided on Aug 02,2011 Ravinder Singh @ Rinku --Petitioner vs. State of Haryana --Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Sanjay Gupta,Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.Sagar Deswal,AAG, Haryana. Rakesh Kumar Jain,J:(Oral) This is a petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short,'Cr.P.C') for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in a case registered vide FIR No.30 dated 18.2.2011 under Section 392 of IPC at Police Station, Shahzadpur, District Ambala. The FIR was registered by one Sat Pal, who has alleged that he is the owner of a Truck No.HR-63-A-0567. On 14.2.2011, he was on truck with his driver and had unloaded marble at Pinjore. Thereafter, 15 cases of English Whisky Mark “Royal Stag” were loaded for the purpose of using it in the marriage of his elder brother's son on 18.2.2011. It is further alleged that at 1.00 A.M of the night intervening 14/15.2.2011, they were intercepted by one Tata Safari No.HR-2P-6931 from which 3/4 persons alighted, armed with dandas and rods and one person was armed with pistol like weapon. They took away not only the Truck but also mobile of driver Sandeep and Rs.42,000/- from the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not named in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in this case. CRM-M-20776 of 2011 (O&M) -2- On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent submits that though the petitioner is not named in the FIR but his name has come in the disclosure statement of co-accused Baljit Singh and Manvir Singh who have been arrested by the police at a naka. In his statement, Manvir Singh has stated that petitioner is his massi's (mother's sister) son and they had planned the robbery at the liquor-vend where the petitioner was working. It is further alleged that the petitioner is also involved in a case under the Excise Act in Rajasthan. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I am of the view that two accused, namely, Baghel and the present petitioner are still at large and unless, they are taken into custody, other recoveries cannot be effected. In this view of the matter, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail and the same is hereby dismissed. August 02,2011 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge