IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-1774 of 2010 Date of decision : 21.1.2010 Jai Bhagwan @ Pappu …. Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …. Respondent and Crl. Misc. No. M-1784 of 2010 Sanjay @ Lallan Bihari …. Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …. Respondent Present: Mr. Bijender Dhankar, Advocate for the petitioner. **** S.S. SARON, J. This order will dispose of Crl. Misc. No.M-1774 of 2010 filed by Jai Bhagwan @ Pappu son of Mahavir and Crl. Misc. No. M- Crl. Misc. No. M-1774 of 2010 and [2] Crl. Misc. No. M-1784 of 2010 1784 of 2010 filed by Sanjay @ Lallan Bihari son of Rakesh. The petitioners in their respective petitions seek regular bail in case FIR No.224 dated 8.4.2009 registered against them at Police Station Chandni Bagh, District Panipat for the offences under Sections 392, 397, 411 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of the complainant Mahesh Kumar son of Mohan Lal. It is alleged that on the date of the incident i.e. 8.4.2009, he was going in his Skoda car to the factory at about 8 o’clock in the evening. When he reached near Pachranga Achar Factory, Sector 25 Part-II, Panipat, three boys came from behind on a motorcycle and stopped their motorcycle in front of the car of the complainant. They stated to the complainant that he did not know how to drive the vehicle and asked him to get down. On this the complainant got down. Out of the vehicle, one of the boys whose description was given by the complainant, showed him a country-made pistol and asked him to sit quietly on the rear seat of the car. One of the boys sat on the driver seat and drove away the car to the bye-pass road of Sector 29, Panipat. There at Satpal Dyeing, they made the complainant to get down from the car and drove away with the Skoda car towards the G.T. road. While going, they took away the complainant’s gold chain, gold bracelet, a watch, purse containing Rs.5,000/- and a mobile of Reliance company mark Blackberry. The description of the other two boys who were accompanying the main accused was also given by the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioners in both the respective petitions are innocent and have been Crl. Misc. No. M-1774 of 2010 and [3] Crl. Misc. No. M-1784 of 2010 falsely implicated in the present case and it is wrongly claimed that the Skoda car was recovered from the Parsan @ Lambu @ Balla and Sanjay @ Lallan Bihari (petitioner in Crl. Misc. No. M-1784 of 2010). It is also submitted that in fact the petitioners (i.e. Jai Bhagwan @ Pappu, petitioner in Crl. Misc. No. M-1774 of 2010 and Sanjay @ Lallan Bihari, petitioner in Crl. Misc. No. M-1784 of 2010) were not present at the time of the alleged incident, when someone decamped with the car of the complainant. It is submitted on behalf of Jai Bhagwan @ Pappu (petitioner in Crl. Misc. No. M-1774 of 2010) that merely because another FIR was registered against the petitioner Sanjay @ Lallan Bihari (petitioner in Crl. Misc. No. M- 1784 of 2010) and Parsan @ Lambu @ Balla is no ground to decline the bail to the petitioner Jai Bhagwan @ Pappu (petitioner in Crl. Misc. No. M-1774 of 2010) in the present case. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I find no merit in the submissions made on behalf of the respective petitioners. The learned Additional Sessions Judge in her order dated 1.9.2009 (Annexure P1 in Crl. Misc. No. M-1774 of 2010) and dated 18.8.2009 (Annexure P1 in Crl. Misc. No. M-1784 of 2010) has noticed that there are several cases against the respective petitioners including that under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. As many as 9 cases stand registered against the petitioner Jai Bhagwan. The Skoda car was recovered from Parsan @ Lambu @ Balla and the petitioner Sanjay @ Lallan Bihari. Besides, one gold chain and gold braclet were handed over to the petitioner Jai Bhagwan (petitioner in Crl. Misc. No. M-1774 of 2010). Insofar as Sanjay @ Lallan Bihari (petitioner in Crl. Misc. No. M-1784 of 2010) is concerned, also there Crl. Misc. No. M-1774 of 2010 and [4] Crl. Misc. No. M-1784 of 2010 are number of cases registered against him. The respective petitioners were party to the committing of robbery of the vehicle and other valuable items of the complainant in Panipat town. Keeping in view the above, no ground for bail is made out at this stage and the Crl. Misc. petitions (i.e. Crl. Misc. No. M- 1774 of 2010 and Crl. Misc. No. M-1784 of 2010) are accordingly dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE January 21, 2010 amit