Crl. Misc. No. M-8045 of 2011 (O&M) (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-8045 of 2011 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 16.03.2011 Sukhdev Singh @ Laddi ..........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ..........Respondent BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Buta Singh, Advocate for Mr. R.S. Bains, Advocate for the petitioner. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. Crl. Misc. No. 146801 of 2011 Application is allowed as prayed for. Crl. Misc. No. M-8045 of 2011 The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf Sukhdev Singh @ Laddi for issuance of directions to conclude the trial in case FIR No. 85 dated 29.9.2006 registered under Sections 364- A,344,148,149 IPC and Section 25,54 and 59 of Arms Act at Police Station Bhadson, District Patiala expeditiously. Admittedly, the petitioner has earlier approached this Court by way of filing Crl. Misc. No. M-19894 of 2009, which was dismissed vide order dated 4.9.2009. Order dated 4.9.2009 is reproduced as under:- “Sukhdev Singh has filed this petition for anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 85 dated 29.9.2006 under Sections 364- A,344,148,149 IPC and under Section 25 of the Arms Act at Crl. Misc. No. M-8045 of 2011 (O&M) (2) Police Station Bhadson, District Patiala. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. According to the prosecution version, the petitioner and his co- accused abducted complainant Sakar Ali and Gobind Kumar Goyal on 12.9.2006 in the morning and kept them confined at different places and demanded Rs. 1.05 crores as ranson. On 28.9.2006 at about 9 PM, Gobind Kumar was taken to a different place. During the night, complainant Sakar Ali succeeded in escaping from the confinement of the accused persons and lodged the FIR. On 29.9.2006, the petitioner and some of co-accused were arrested and Gobind Kumar was recovered from their custody. Keeping in view the aforesaid serious allegations, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail. Dismissed. However, the petitioner is in custody for almost three years and next date of hearing in the trial court is said to be 24.9.2009. The prosecution is directed to conclude its evidence within six months form the said date of hearing. The trial court shall give short dates for prosecution evidence.” Subsequently, petitioner again approached this Court by way of filing Crl. Misc. No. M-11358 of 2010, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 26.5.2010. Order dated 26.5.2010 is reproduced as under:- “Pursuant to order of the preceding date, affidavit of Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala filed today in Court is taken on record. Perusal thereof reveals that delay in the trial has, inter alia, occurred on the ground that the petitioner and his co- accused are confined in different jails of Uttar Pradesh and Crl. Misc. No. M-8045 of 2011 (O&M) (3) Uttrakhand and on many dates of hearing, they were not produced in the trial court by the jail authorities. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the trial Court be directed to expedite the trial and the petitioner be permitted to withdraw the instant bail petition. Dismissed as withdrawn. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial. The prosecution shall also expedite its evidence. The trial court may consider the feasibility of fixing the case for 3/4 consecutive days so that if the accused are produced, they can be kept in local jail for 3/4 days and evidence may be recorded.” Since the directions have already been issued to expedite the trial, no further directions can be issued at this stage. The petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. March 16, 2011 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE