IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-10332 of 2009 Date of decision : July 16, 2009 Kaptan and another ....Petitioners versus State of Haryana ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. RS Bains, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. Sidharth Sarup, AAG Haryana with Mr. AB Dalal, Advocate, for the complainant L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Kaptan and Nanha alias Shri Bhagwan have filed this petition for bail in case FIR No. 142 dated 19.5.2008, under sections 307 read with section 34 IPC and section 25 of Arms Act, Police Station Sadar Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. According to the prosecution version, on 15.5.2008 at 8.15 PM, on the instigation of Nanha alias Shri Bhagwan, Kaptan petitioner no. 1 fired at complainant Rohtas causing him injury. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the only allegation against Nanha alias Shri Bhagwan is that he had instigated the co- accused Kaptan to fire at the complainant. It is also stated that Nanha alias Shri Bhagwan is in custody since 26.6.2008 i.e. for more than a year. Criminal Misc. No. M-10332 of 2009 -2- As regards Kaptan, it is argued that he was in custody in some other case at Meerut at the time of occurrence. However, learned State counsel and learned counsel for the complainant submit that the remand sheet of the Meerut case reveals that the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 15.5.2008 to 29.5.2008 but this does not rule out petitioner no. 1 being released on bail on 15.5.2008 after the remand order was passed. It is also contended by learned counsel for the complainant that the person who appeared as accused in Meerut case was different from petitioner no. 1, accused in the instant case. It is also contended that bullet is still embedded in the body of the complainant. It is further submitted that only two witnesses remained to be examined. Keeping in view all the circumstances but without meaning to express any opinion on the merits, petitioner no. 1 Kaptan does not deserve the concession of bail and bail petition on behalf of petitioner no. 1 is dismissed. However, bail petition on behalf of petitioner no. 2 is allowed. Bail to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Jhajjar. ( L.N. Mittal ) July 16, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'