IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-26007 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 18.11.2009 Parmod ....Petitioner(s) vs. State of Haryana ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Rakesh Nehra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Yash Pal Malik, AAG, Haryana. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Counsel for the petitioner contends that Ramesh was arrested on 31.3.2009. On his disclosure statement, apart from the petitioner, Naveen and Kuldeep were also arrested. Petitioner was arrested on the same day i.e. 31.3.2009 and is in custody since then. He contends that the allegation against the petitioner is that he along with a co-accused lady had served tea to the driver of the truck laced with some intoxicant who is the complainant. On his becoming unconscious, the truck was taken away by the petitioner. The truck, as a matter of fact, has been recovered from a vacant field on 31.3.2009 itself. He contends that all the other three co- accused, namely, Ramesh, Kuldeep and Naveen had been enlarged on bail by the Courts. Ramesh was released on bail vide order dated 6.4.2009 by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Rohtak. Naveen was granted bail by this Court vide order dated 17.7.2009 and thereafter Kuldeep was granted regular bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Crl.Misc.No.M-26007 of 2009 -2- Court), Rohtak. He, therefore, contends that the petitioner be also released on bail as the trial is not likely to conclude soon as out of total 16 witnesses, only 7 have been examined till date and 9 witnesses remain to be examined. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner is the main accused, who had served tea in which some intoxicants were mixed leading to the complainant-driver becoming unconscious and thereafter the truck was taken away by the petitioner. He, therefore, contends that the petitioner should not be granted the benefit of bail. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. In the light of the fact that the co-accused of the petitioner had been granted bail and the petitioner is in custody since 31.3.2009 and also keeping in view the fact that the trial is not likely to conclude soon as out of 16 witnesses, only 7 have been examined leaving 9 witnesses to be examined, further incarceration of the petitioner would not in any way help the prosecution, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court. November 18, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE