IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-2649 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: October 8, 2010. Himanshu @Arun @Anu ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Haryana ...... RESPONDENT(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. S.S.Dinarpur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Dhruv Dayal, D.A.G., Haryana. Mr. Jasmandeep, Advocate for Mr. Anupam Gupta, Advocate for the complainant. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed for regular bail under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR No.113 dated 10.06.2009, under Sections 148/149/302/120-B/379 IPC, registered at Police Station Naraingarh, District Ambala. CRM No.M-2649 of 2010 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that his name has not been mentioned in the FIR and that he has been falsely implicated in this case later on without any basis. Further contends that he has been continuing in custody since 10.06.2009 and that trial is not likely to be concluded in near future as only three witnesses have been examined so far. Bail application has been vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the State on the plea that name of petitioner has been mentioned by the complainant in his supplementary statement recorded on the same day. It has also been contended that in the FIR complainant has mentioned that there were two other boys, who were giving beatings to the deceased and later on he gave names of those boys including the petitioner. Further contends that name of petitioner has also come in the statements of Sachin and Rahul, who were allegedly with the deceased on motorcycle at the time of occurrence. Further contends that as many as 18 injuries were found on the person of deceased. It has also been stated by learned counsel for the complainant that the witnesses are being threatened from the side of petitioner-accused and hence their examination could not be completed. However, it has been stated by learned counsel for the State that there is no such complaint with the police. I have considered all the facts and circumstances of the case. The main witnesses are yet to be examined. Case is fixed for 26.10.2010 for remaining evidence of prosecution. 2 CRM No.M-2649 of 2010 Hence, keeping in view serious allegations against the petitioner- accused and without expressing anything on the merit of the case, I am of the view that petitioner is not entitled for concession of bail at this stage. There is no merit in the instant application for bail filed by Himanshu. The same is, hereby, dismissed. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) October 8, 2010. JUDGE 'om' 3