HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CRM No.M-10538 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.05.2011 **** Anand . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Haryana . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? **** Present: Mr. JS Bedi, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. HS Deol, Addl. AG Haryana Mr. Babbar Bhan, Advocate for the complainant **** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner seeks his enlargement on regular bail in the case FIR No.264 dated 28.10.2008 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 302, 216, 120-B, 449 IPC and 25/27/30/54/59 of the Arms Act registered at PS Sampla, District Rohtak. (2). A list of cases handed over by the learned State counsel during the course of hearing of course in most of the cases the petitioner and/or his brothers earned acquittals as the witnesses resiled and could not dare to depose the truth, reveal that if there is even grain of truth, the petitioner is a notorious gangster and his release on bail would be a threat to the civil society. There is every likelihood that the petitioner, as per his track record, would threaten and silent the witnesses thereby obstructing the administration of justice. (3). Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner himself is not involved in some of these cases and though his brothers are/were named. It does not improve the case of the petitioner as the whole family appears to be indulging in anti-social activities like serial killers. (4). This aspect was not brought to the notice of this Court while deciding the bail application of the petitioner’s co- accused vide orders dated 29.01.2010; 09.08.2010; and 17.02.2011 passed in CRM No.M-22683 of 2009 (Phool Ram v. State of Haryana); CRM NO.M-13805 of 2010 (Dharampal @ Malha v. State of Haryana); and CRM No.M-24500 of 2010 (Sandeep @ Sonu v. State of Haryana) (Annexures P2; P3 & P4, respectively). (5). No case to grant regular bail to the petitioner is made out at this stage. (6). Dismissed. 16.05.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge