Crl. Misc. No. 34570 of 2010 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 34570 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: 07.12.2010 Naveen ..........Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ..........Respondent BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. SS Narula, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Dilbagh Chaudhary, DAG, Haryana. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. The present petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail has been filed on behalf of Naveeen in case FIR No. 335 dated 26.6.2009 registered under Sections 148,149,307,120-B IPC and 25/54/59 of Arms Act at Police Station City, Sonepat, District Sonepat. Notice of motion was issued on 26.11.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was found innocent during the investigation conducted by the police. The petitioner has been implicated in this case only because of the reason that he deposed against one well known criminal, namely, Tapeshwar in case FIR No. 352 dated 17.11.2006 registered under Sections 364-A,368,120- B,379, 411 IPC and Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act at Police Station Ganaur and the present FIR is the result of deposition made by the petitioner against said Tapeshwar. Learned counsel further contends that nothing is Crl. Misc. No. 34570 of 2010 (2) to be recovered from the petitioner and he is ready to appear before the trial Court Learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes the bail on the ground that the petitioner has been named in the FIR by the injured himself and out of total five persons, two persons, who fired shot, were recognized by him. Learned counsel further contends that there is serious apprehension that the petitioner can win over the witnesses because of the previous enmity between the parties and moreover nothing has been mentioned by the investigating agency as to how the petitioner has been found innocent during investigation. I have heard the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and have also gone through the contents of the FIR as well as other documents available on record. Although the petitioner was found innocent in the investigation conducted by the police but no where it has been mentioned by the investigating agency that as to how the petitioner was found innocent. There are serious allegations against the petitioner and he has been named by injured-Tapeshwar himself. In view of the above, no ground for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made out. Dismissed. However, in case the petitioner appears before the trial Court and move an application for regular bail, the trial Court is directed to decide the same within a period of three days in accordance with law. However, it is made clear that any observations made here-in- above shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. December 07, 2010 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE Crl. Misc. No. 34570 of 2010 (3) Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No