IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-1380 of 2011 Date of Decision: February 23, 2011 Pawan Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana. … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be Allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Dhir, D.A.G., Haryana, for the respondent-State. Alok Singh, J. (Oral) This is an application seeking regular bail in case F.I.R. No. 246, dated 22.07.2010, under Sections 302/307/120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Gannaur, District Sonepat. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner has lodged four F.I.Rs. against the complainant CRM M-1380 of 2011 party prior to the incident. As per the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner, petitioner was said to be in the car and at his instance, other co-accused Sunil, Rajinder and Amit have fired at Parveen deceased. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that since no specific role has been attributed to the petitioner and challan has already been submitted in the Court, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petitioner in the judicial custody. Mr. Gaurav Dhir, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, on the instructions of I.O. Jagdish Chander, has vehemently argued that Parveen was killed at the behest of Pawan Kumar, present accused-petitioner since there was long standing enmity between the parties. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I find some substance in the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has not been attributed any specific role. Present petition is allowed. Let, petitioner be released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. February 23, 2011 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 2