In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-35121 of 2009 ..... Date of decision:9.2.2010 Kuldeep alias Kuke .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. Rajbir Sehrawat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Pawan Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks regular bail in case FIR No.302 dated 12.9.2009 registered against him for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Ashok Kumar, Sub Inspector. It is alleged that he along with other Police officials were patrolling in a Jeep at Village Kharawar More Gandhra on Delhi Bye-pass road. In the meanwhile, a young boy got down from a Jeep which came from the Delhi side. He had a small plastic bag in his hand. The said boy was known to Sub Inspector Ashok Kumar. When he was asked to stop, he threw the bag and ran away. The Sub Inspector along with his companions apprehended him and he disclosed his name as Kuldeep alias Kuke (petitioner). On search of the plastic bag, three pistols, out of which two were of .315 bore and one .32 bore and five cartridges of .32 Cr. Misc. No.M-35121 of 2009 [2] bore recovered. The same were taken in possession after preparing necessary memo. The petitioner had committed an offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is in custody for the last four months since 12.9.2009. It is submitted that in view of the fact that earlier FIRs are registered against him, therefore, the petitioner has been implicated in the present case which is false. In response, learned counsel for the State has submitted that there are five more cases registered against the petitioner and, therefore, he is not entitled to the concession of bail. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter. The petitioner is in custody since 12.9.2009. The challan in the case has been filed. As such, the custody of the petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation. In four FIRs, he has been acquitted. Those were registered in the year 1999. Apart from the present case, another case for the offence under Section 216 IPC is pending against the petitioner which was registered on 3.9.2009. In that case he is on bail. In the present case, the recovery has already been effected. The case is triable by the Court of Magistrate of first Class and the trial is likely to take time. In the circumstances, the petitioner on his furnishing personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the trial Magistrate shall be admitted to bail. One of the sureties to be furnished by the petitioner shall be of a respectable person of his village who along with the petitioner shall undertake that while on bail the petitioner shall maintain peace and be of good behaviour. Cr. Misc. No.M-35121 of 2009 [3] The criminal miscellaneous petition stands disposed of. February 9, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*