Criminal Misc. No. M-1621 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-1621 of 2009 Date of decision: July 21, 2009 Hemant Kumar @ Helu -Petitioner Versus State of Punjab -Respondent Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta Present: Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Shilesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab. Mr. PS Kohli, Advocate, for the complainant. Rajan Gupta, J.(Oral) This is a petition for regular bail in a case registered against the petitioner under Sections 302,342,148,149 IPC at Police Station Sadar Abohar, District Ferozepur vide FIR No. 222 dated 21.10.2007. The instant case was lodged at the behest of one Kamla Devi, who reported to the police that all the accused armed with lethal weapons had inflicted injuries on the person of her husband Madan Lal. . He died as a result of the injuries. A board of doctors was constituted to conduct the postmortem examination. The said board opined that the cause of death of the deceased was collective effect of the injuries. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner was not named in the FIR. Counsel has further submitted that role of the petitioner in the commission of crime is highly doubtful and he has been in custody for quite some time. He, therefore, prays that the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail. Criminal Misc. No. M-1621 of 2009 2 Learned State counsel has, however, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. He has submitted that the name of the petitioner appeared in the supplementary statements of eye witnesses namely Kamla Devi and Raju, which were recorded later. According to the counsel, petitioner remained a proclaimed offender. He did not surrender but was arrested by the police. In case enlarged on bail, the possibility of his escaping from the process of law could not be ruled out. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. In my considered view, petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail pending trial. Having remained a proclaimed offender for quite some time during pendency of trial, if enlarged on bail, possibility of his absconding cannot be ruled out. This apart, name of the petitioner has figured in the statements of eye witnesses. Thus, keeping in view seriousness of the allegations, the gravity of offence, the punishment it would entail in case of conviction, I find no ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. [Rajan Gupta] Judge July 21, 2009. 'ask'