IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-11145 of 2010 Date of Decision: April 20, 2010 Virender .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Sudhir Kumar Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioner. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.349 dated 1.12.2008 under Sections 332, 353, 307 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act registered with Police Station, Ganaur, District Sonepat. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in custody since 1.12.2008. Learned counsel further states that there is nothing to indicate that petitioner had fired. I have considered the contentions. Crl. Misc. No. M-11145 of 2010 [2] As per allegations in the FIR, the petitioner alongwith other accused fired on a police party. .32 bore revolver was recovered from the accused which had 4 live and 2 empty cartridges. It would prima facie indicate that indeed the petitioner had also fired. On interrogation, the petitioner suffered a disclosure statement which indicates involvement of the petitioner in a number of cases of similar nature in Districts Sonepat and Rohtak. I have also taken note of the fact that petitioner was apprehended at the spot while petitioner alongwith other accused was making preparations to commit the crime. In view of the nature of allegations and the fact that petitioner is involved in a number of other cases, apprehension of his absconding cannot be ruled out. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed. In view of the custody period of the petitioner, the Trial Court is requested to expedite the trial and conclude it within a period of 4 months of next date of hearing. (AJAI LAMBA) April 20, 2010 JUDGE avin Crl. Misc. No. M-11145 of 2010 [3] 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?