IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M 30638 of 2010 Date of decision: 14.12.2010 Munir Husain ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.SK Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Amandeep Singh, AAG, Haryana *** Ram Chand Gupta, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed by petitioner Munir Husain under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 138 dated 12.2.2009 registered under Sections 458, 380 IPC (Sections 392, 397 IPC added later on) at Police Station City Panipat. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the order dated 15.9.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, vide which he dismissed the bail application of the petitioner. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- accused that he has been continuing in custody since 7.6.2009. Further contends that trial is not likely to be concluded in near future as one another person has been summoned on application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the prosecution and the said order has been challanged by the accused before this Court, in which operation of that order was stayed. CRM No.M 30638 of 2010 -2- Bail petition has been vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the State on the plea that there are serious allegations against the petitioner-accused as he alongwith co-accused entered the house of the complainant and committed robbery of articles, cash, laptop and mobile on the point of Chhuri and Screw Driver by breaking open the door of the house of the complainant and threatened to kill them. Further contends that two accused persons have been arrested and other five are still absconding. Further contends that out of thirteen, six witnesses have been examined and that main witnesses are yet to be examined. Further contends that there is apprehension that accused may abscond and tamper with the evidence by pressurising the witness. Further contends that petitioner-accused is also an accused in one another FIR No. 267 dated 25.5.2009 under Sections 399, 402 IPC and 25 of the Arms Act and that the petitioner was arrested in this case after registration of the said case. Hence, in view of serious allegations against the petitioner- accused, he is not entitled for bail at this stage. Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the instant petition for regular bail filed by petitioner Munir Husain is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of merit. However, the learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial. December 14, 2010 (RAM CHAND GUPTA) gsv JUDGE