Crl. Misc. No. M-30103 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-30103 of 2011 Date of Decision : November 26, 2011 Sahil .... Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate for Mr. R. S. Mamli, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Kumar, DAG, Haryana. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : By this common order, I am disposing of two petitions i.e. Crl. Misc. No. M-30103 of 2011 filed by accused Sahil and Crl. Misc. No. M- 30757 of 2011 filed by accused Wasim – both seeking bail in case FIR No.207 dated 28.11.2010, under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Yamuna Nagar. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Crl. Misc. No. M-30103 of 2011 2 The occurrence took place at about 01:00 A.M. during night intervening 27/28.11.2010. The complainant, who was driving a truck was intercepted by six persons in a car. They told the complainant that he had hit their car. They forcibly put the complainant in their car and took to katcha gohar. His hands were tied with his shirt. The culprits took Rs.14,600/- of the complainant and went away. The complainant, after untying himself, went to the place where the truck had been intercepted, but did not find the truck there along with complainant's mobile telephone, which was in the truck. The truck was found abandoned about four kilometers from the place, where it had been intercepted. Petitioners' co-accused Anwar was arrested and he made disclosure statement regarding involvement of present petitioners also. Mobile telephone had allegedly come to the share of petitioner Sahil, who, after making disclosure statement, located the place where he had allegedly thrown the mobile telephone, but the same was not recovered from there. From petitioner Wasim, recovery of Rs.1,000/- was made. Similarly, recovery of Rs.1,000/- each was made from two other co- accused, besides recovery of two pistols i.e. one each from Anwar and Sonu. An iron rod was also recovered from petitioner Wasim. Two dandas were also recovered from co-accused. Petitioner Wasim was arrested on 05.06.2011 i.e. more than six months after the occurrence, whereas petitioner Sahil was arrested on Crl. Misc. No. M-30103 of 2011 3 29.07.2011 i.e. eight months after the occurrence. As mentioned herein before, no recovery was effected from petitioner Sahil. Even from petitioner Wasim, recovery of iron rod and Rs.1,000/- was made and it is to be seen during trial whether the amount of Rs.1,000/- could be out of the amount robbed from the complainant because alleged recovery was effected more than six months after the occurrence. Petitioner Sahil is in custody for almost four months and petitioner Wasim is in custody for more than 5½ months. Keeping in view the aforesaid, but without meaning to express any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that both the petitioners deserve the concession of bail. Accordingly, both the bail petitions are allowed. Bail to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar. November 26, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE