IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-12543 of 2009 (O/M) Date of Decision : October 13, 2009. Dal Chand .............Petitioner(s). Versus. State of Haryana ..... Respondent(s). CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. R.S. Sihota, Senior Advocate, with Mr. B.R. Rana, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Ashok Kumar Jindal, A.A.G. Haryana, for respondent-State. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is in custody since 26.02.2009 and charge against the petitioner stands framed. He further contends that two main prosecution witnesses, i.e., Manager of the Bank and the Complainant, already stand examined. His further contention is that for the last four dates, no prosecution witness has been examined and the matter is being delayed without the trial proceeding any further. He further contends that the Bank, as such, has not been put to loss, as is apparent from the F.I.R. itself as the money, which is stated to have been misappropriated by the petitioner, is collected and the payment made good. He on this basis contends that further incarceration of the petitioner, would not be beneficial to the prosecution in any manner. Counsel for respondent-State, on the other hand submits that the next date of hearing before the Trial Court is 26.10.2009. He further Criminal Misc. No. M-12543 of 2009. submits that the petitioner is alleged to have defrauded the Bank of huge amount and, therefore, benefit of bail should not be granted to him. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. In view of the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 26.02.2009 and the main witnesses, i.e. Manager and the Complainant having been examined and also keeping in view the fact that the trial is not likely to conclude soon, especially when the case was fixed for prosecution evidence, but the same could not be recorded on the last four dates by the Trial Court, further continuation of the petitioner in jail is not called for. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE October 13, 2009. sjks. -2-