IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYNA AT CHANDIGARH. Cr.Misc. M 9906 of 2010 Date of decision: 10.5.2010 Shamim Petitioner vs. State of Haryana Respondent Present: Mr. Satish Chaudhry, Advocate. Mr. YP Malik, DAG, Hry M.M.S.BEDI,J. The petitioner apprehends arrest in a case of dacoity, in which a truck of the complainant had been taken away by the co-accused of the petitioner . Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner has been involved in the case on the basis of statement of an accomplice and the said statement is not admissible in evidence. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the record, I am of the opinion that in view of the seriousness of the allegations in the FIR alleging that the petitioner had participated in the act of dacoity with his co-accused, no extra ordinary exceptional circumstances exist for the grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. It will be pre-mature at this stage to appreciate the circumstances whether the statement of an accomplice is admissible in the light of the provisions of Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act read with illustration of Section 114 of the said Act. Dismissed. However, it is observed that nothing said in the order will prejudice the right of the petitioner to seek the concession of regular bail. May 10 ,2010 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE