IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No. 23274-M of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : JANUARY 25, 2010 VARINDER SINGH @ CHEENA ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. HPS Ghuman, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl.AG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition under Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed for bail in FIR No.22 dated 5.3.2009 under Sections 392, 394, 307, Indian Penal Code, and Section 25 of the Arms Act, Police Station, Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the injured witness has gone to Bihar and despite efforts of the prosecuting agency, is not appearing in court. Learned counsel for the respondent-State, on instructions from HC Jaspal Singh of Police Station, Bhawanigarh, states that the petitioner is involved in a number of cases. In the present case, three witnesses have Criminal Misc. No. 23274-M of 2009 2 already been examined. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has been allowed the concession of bail in all other cases. Considering the nature of offence, viz. robbery and causing hurt in committing robbery; the involvement of the petitioner in other cases; the fact that 3 witnesses have already been examined in trial; as per the allegations in the FIR, the petitioner was armed with a revolver and three injuries having been caused, I find no reason to allow bail to the petitioner. Merely because the injuries were simple, as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, per se, would not entitle the petitioner to bail in view of the fact that as per the allegations in the FIR, the petitioner along with his co-accused, committed robbery and caused hurt while committing robbery. The petition is dismissed. January 25, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?