IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-9353 of 2009 Date of decision : July 16, 2009 Gaurav Kumar alias Bhoot alias Kala Singh ....Petitioner versus State of Haryana ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Sidharth Sarup, AAG Haryana L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) By this common order, I am disposing of two petitions i.e. Criminal Misc. No. M-9353 of 2009 filed by Gaurav Kumar alias Bhoot alias Kala Singh and Criminal Misc. No. M-6447 of 2009 filed by Dhyan Singh, both seeking bail in case FIR No. 518 dated 27.9.2008 under sections 302, 323, 148, 149 IPC, Police Station Sector-5, Panchkula. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. According to the prosecution version, there was some altercation on 26.9.2008 when in the bus, after college hours foot of Khushal Singh touched the foot of Mukesh Saini, President of Student Union of College. On 27.9.2008, the petitioners, Mukesh Saini and many others named and un-named in the FIR attacked the complainant party while armed with dandas and lathis. Both these petitioners and Munish hit Criminal Misc. No. M-9353 of 2009 -2- complainant Arun Kumar with danda and stones. Thereafter both petitioners, Pawan Rana and Mukesh Saini caught hold of Khushal and thereafter Mukesh Saini and Pushpinder inflicted knife blows to Khushal resulting in his death. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the petitioners are in custody since 29.9.2008 (Gaurav Kumar) and 18.10.2008 (Dhyan Singh). However, this is no ground for bail. Specific role has been attributed to both the petitioners. Firstly, they caused injuries to Arun Kumar complainant and thereafter they along with others caught hold of the deceased who was inflicted fatal injuries by co-accused. Keeping in view the role attributed to the petitioners and other circumstances and also the fact that the occurrence did not take place on the spur of the moment, but without meaning to express any opinion on the merits, the petitioners do not deserve the concession of bail. Dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) July 16, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'