CRM-M-29618-2011 [ 1 ] CRM-M-32476-2011 :::::::: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) CRM-M-29618-2011 Date of decision:11.11.2011 Ajay Pal Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent (2) CRM-M-32476-2011 Date of decision:11.11.2011 Satbir Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Surinder Singh Walia, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M-29618-2011. Mr. Ravi Malhotra, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M-32476-2011. Mr. A.S.Rai, DAG, Punjab. ***** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. (ORAL) This order shall dispose of two petitions bearing CRM-M-29618-2011 titled as 'Ajay Pal Singh Vs. State of Punjab' [for short “first petition”] and CRM-M-32476-2011 titled as `Satbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab' [for short “second petition”] in which the petitioner(s) are praying for grant of regular bail in a pending trial case registered vide FIR No.189 dated 03.09.2011, under Sections 308/149 IPC at Police Station Navi Bara Dari, District Jalandhar. CRM-M-29618-2011 [ 2 ] CRM-M-32476-2011 :::::::: The FIR has been registered on the basis of information received from the Reader of the Court of Shri Jatinderpal Singh Khurmi, Additional District & Sessions Judge, Jalandhar in which it is alleged that while the Court was in session, some persons entered the courtroom chasing two persons. They threw chairs upon each other with an intention to inflict injuries. The Naib Court as well as the gunman of the Court had tried to save the two persons who were being attacked. Some of the assailants succeeded in escaping but on the direction of the Court, the courtroom was closed and three persons, namely, Ajay Pal Singh (petitioner in CRM-M-29618-2011) and two persons who were being chased, namely Amar son of Vijay and Balwinder Kumar, were apprehended and taken into custody. It is alleged that those persons were having a case pending in the Court of Shri Atul Kasana, Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. After the matter was reported to the learned District & Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, this case was registered. It is common ground of the learned counsel for both the petitioner (s) that no offence under Section 308 IPC is made out and no recovery is to be effected. However, after hearing both learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the petitioner(s) do not deserve the concession of bail as they have scant respect either for the process of law or the Court. Since they can fight with each other in the courtroom when the Presiding Officer is sitting and is hearing the cases, therefore, there is likelihood that they would misuse the concession of bail if released. In view thereof, I do not find these cases to be fit for grant of bail. Hence, both the petitions are hereby dismissed. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of another connected case. November 11, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE