IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 25966 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: November 8, 2010. Ram Partap ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Punjab ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. S.P.S.Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Guzi Mohd., D.A.G., Punjab. Mr. I.P.S.Kohli, Advocate for the complainant. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) This is an application for regular bail filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR No.222 dated 21.10.2007, under Sections 302/342/148/149 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Abohar, District Ferozepur. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. CRM No.M-25966 of 2010 It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he was not named in the FIR and that later on he was named in the statement of Raju, servant of the complainant wherein it has been alleged that petitioner caught hold of Raju. Further contends that he was not aware of his case and he himself surrendered before Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Abohar on 16.03.2009. Further contends that similarly situated co-accused, namely, Vinod Kumar, Narinder Kumar and Shiv Kumar have already been granted regular bail by this Court. Bail application has been vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant on the ground that name of petitioner came in the statement of complainant, Kamla recorded on the same day on which FIR was registered and in the FIR it has been stated that there were two persons at the time of occurrence. Further contends that petitioner-accused belongs to same village and disputed land also situated in the same village despite that petitioner had been absconding and was declared proclaimed offender. Further contends that he remained absconding for about two years before he surrendered. Hence, it has been contended that by learned counsel for the State that petitioner is likely to abscond again if released on bail. Hence, in view of the previous conduct of the petitioner-accused and in view of apprehension of the prosecution that he is likely to abscond again if released on bail, I am of the view that it is not such a case in which concession of bail should be granted to the accused at this stage. Hence, keeping in view these facts and without expressing anything on the merit of the case, the instant application for regular bail filed by Ram Partap is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of merit. 2 CRM No.M-25966 of 2010 ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) November 8, 2010. JUDGE 'om' 3