IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYNA AT CHANDIGARH. Cr.Misc. M 10668 of 2010 Date of decision: 22.7.2010 Narotam Petitioner vs. State of Punjab Respondent Present: Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Advocate. Mr. PS Bajwa, DAG, Pb M.M.S.BEDI,J. The petitioner is alleged to have fired at an employee of the filling station on 16.2.2009 on his refusal to hand over the cash, available with him. The petitioner had allegedly fired upon the complainant causing simple injuries with pellets on his right hand and face. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was arrested on 2.8.2009 in an Arm Act case. He allegedly made a disclosure statement on 4.8.2009 before the police for having committed the offence in the present case, resulting in his arrest on 4.8.2009 in the present case. It has further been argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in both the cases and that the disclosure statement before the police is not admissible in evidence. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that it will certainly be debatable whether, on the basis of a confessional statement made, after 6 months of the occurrence, would be sufficient enough to connect the petitioner with the crime but in view of the fact that the complainant has identified the petitioner as an accused, on the basis of his photograph and the petitioner having refused to participate in the identification parade; the petitioner being a resident of UP, it will not be prudent to release him on bail during pendency of the trial. Dismissed. However, the trial court is directed to expedite the final adjudication of the trial. It will be appreciated in case the trial is concluded within four months after the receipt of a certified copy of the order. July 22 ,2010 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE