IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-16948 of 2009 Date of decision : September 08, 2009 Surinder alias Sunder ....Petitioner versus State of Haryana ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. BS Chahar, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Sidharth Sarup, AAG Haryana L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Criminal Misc. No. 45290 of 2009 The application is allowed and Annexures A/1 to A/5 are taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Criminal Misc. No. M-16948 of 2009 Surinder alias Sunder has filed this petition for bail in case FIR No. 156 dated 31.3.2009 under sections 398, 401 IPC and section 25 of the Arms Act, Police Station Barwala, District Hisar. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. According to the prosecution version, secret information was received by the police that the petitioner along with two other persons armed with weapons were present for extortion of commuters and businessmen. The police party raided the said place. Even the police vehicle was waylaid by the petitioner and his co-accused and on pistol point, driver was asked to hand over whatever he had with him. Later on Criminal Misc. No. M-16948 of 2009 -2- when the petitioner and his co-accused realized that there were police officials in the vehicle, they tried to ran away. One of them Vikas alias Vicky was apprehended who also disclosed the names of others two including the petitioner who had run away. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is in custody since 23.4.2009. However, learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Suresh Kumar, contended that the petitioner is convict in three other cases i.e. in FIR No. 14 dated 17.1.2002 of Police Station Barwala in a murder case, in FIR No. 14 dated 19.1.2006 of Police Station Uchana in a case under sections 399, 402 and 307 IPC read with section 25 of the Arms Act and FIR No. 78 dated 20.4.2005 of Police Station Barwala under Parole Act for over staying parole period. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has since been acquitted in murder case of Police Station Barwala referred to hereinabove in appeal by this Court. However, no judgment has been placed on record in support of this contention. Moreover, the petitioner is convict in another similar case of Police Station Uchana as involved in the instant case. Keeping in view the antecedents of the petitioner as well as allegations in the instant case but without meaning to express any opinion on merits, in my opinion, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail. Dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) September 08, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'