IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. M. No.22922-M of 2010 Date of Decision:1.12.2010 Malkiat Singh .... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .... Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. P.S. Bajwa, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Preeti Chaudhary, A.A.G. Haryana. Mr. Sunil Saharan, Advocate for Mr. Jitender Dhanda, Advocate for the complainant. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral) Prayer made in the present petition is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.93 dated 16.5.2009 registered under Sections 302/148/149/427 of IPC at Police Station Jakhal, District Fatehabad. It is contended that although the petitioner was named in the FIR but PW-2 did not name him in his subsequent statement made before the Court. It is further contended that no motive is attributed to the present petitioner. His presence appears to be doubtful as the PW could not describe the details/identity of the present petitioner. It is also stated that he has nothing to do with the labour contract and has been named only on account of his proximity with the other accused. Heard. The name of the present petitioner is mentioned in the FIR. Specific injury is attributed to him. The said injury is on the deceased. Crl. M. No.22922-M of 2010 -2- Although, the petitioner has not been named by PW-2 but he has specifically been named by PW-1. Besides, it is specifically stated in the FIR that accused had dragged the deceased to a distance of 15-20 paces from the place of occurrence before giving further injuries. The petitioner was a member of the group, who inflicted multiple injuries. As per the medical report, there are multiple injuries and the same are anti mortem in nature. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that the prosecution evidence is almost complete except two formal witnesses. Accordingly, no ground to grant bail is made out. Dismissed. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial. However, nothing observed here in above shall be construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case. 1.12.2010 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE