In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-6656 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:13.9.2010 Sumit .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. Sanjiv Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.C. Gupta, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for respondent-State. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered against him on 30.4.2009 for the offences under Sections 392, 397, 420, 467, 468 and 471 Indian Penal Code. The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Jagroop Singh. The petitioner was arrested in another case i.e. FIR No.165 dated 5.5.2009 for the offences under Sections 398 and 401 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. In the said case he made disclosure statement that he along with his co-accused Ajmer and Sandeep had looted/robbed Tavera vehicle and sold it to co-accused Surinder. The allegations in the present FIR as registered on the statement of Jagroop Singh are that his Tavera vehicle had been taken away when he stopped at Mangla Dhaba and had tea at about 1.30 a.m. At that time two young persons came there and one of them kept pistol on his head Cr. Misc. No.M-6656 of 2010 [2] and asked him to drive his vehicle. The other person opened the back window and both of them sat on the seat behind the complainant. In the meantime the third person also came there and they all were having pistols. They told the complainant to take the vehicle towards Panipat. So under the fear he reversed his vehicle and started towards Panipat. After about 3-4 kms., they asked the complainant to stop the vehicle. They took the complainant on the left side of the road in the Kikkar and after threatening him took off his uniform and asked him to keep mum or else he would be shot dead. Those three persons fled away towards Panipat along with the vehicle. The documents of the vehicle, registration certificate, permit, insurance and the dress the complainant was wearing, Rs.500/-, driving licence and Nokia mobile phone were also looted. The complainant then came to the G.T. Road and at some distance there was a Dhaba from where he informed his uncle Gurdev Singh about the incident and then he came to the Police Station after his uncle came from Mohali. It was requested that action be taken. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is being proceeded against only on the basis of disclosure statement which was recorded by the Police; besides, he is in custody since 16.5.2010 and six witnesses more remain to be examined. It is also submitted that the Tavera vehicle has been recovered. In response, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the petitioner is also involved in another FIR in which he has been acquitted. In any case, it is submitted that in the present case in case the petitioner is granted regular bail he is likely to abscond. Cr. Misc. No.M-6656 of 2010 [3] After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the case involves looting of Tavera vehicle on the G.T. road near Panipat. The petitioner along with two other persons kept pistols on the head of the complainant Jagroop Singh and drove away his vehicle after undressing him from the driver's uniform. On the basis of the disclosure statement of the petitioner, the Tavera vehicle was recovered from one Surinder to whom the petitioner has sold the same. The trial in the case is in progress. Out of the 16 witnesses cited by the prosecution, 8 have been examined. The next date fixed for trial is 9.10.2010 for evidence. In the circumstances, no ground for grant of bail is made out at this stage. The criminal miscellaneous petitions is accordingly dismissed. September 13, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*