IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.-M No. 4674 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: 05.10.2011 Shamsher ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ..Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. S.K. Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Chahal, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana. …… RAJESH BINDAL, J. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not named in the FIR. His name was disclosed by the co-accused in his disclosure statement in police custody. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the complainant in the present case has stated that her brothers-in-law had fired at her. After their arrest, they disclosed the name of the petitioner, who was hired for killing the complainant. The complainant had suffered gun shot injuries. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made above, where the complainant had suffered gun shot injuries and name of the petitioner was disclosed by the accused, who has specifically been named in the FIR, in my opinion, the petitioner does not deserve concession of bail pending trial at this stage. Dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE 5.10.2011 mk