CRM No.M-14607 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-14607 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:- 14.11.2011 Vishal ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI Present: Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Shalini Attri, D.A.G., Haryana. M.M.S. Bedi, J.(Oral) The petitioner is in custody for the last 02 years and 09 months in a case registered at the instance of PW1-Raj Bala alleging that she was informed by Manoj that her son Mohan was being beaten by the petitioner- Sandeep and three others boys. As per her statement made in the Court, when she reached at the spot, she saw the petitioner along with two other boys giving beatings to her son-Mohan. The accused on seeing said PW1-Raj Bala, escaped from the spot. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the said complainant has made improvement in her statement made in the Court. But, her original statement, resulting in lodging of the FIR, did not contain the fact that she had actually seen the petitioner and others while beating her son. It is claimed that the case of the prosecution is that the complainant had arrived at the spot along with Siri Parkash, Randhir and Bobby. Manoj has already appeared as a witness, but he did not support the case of the prosecution. Randhir and Siri Parkash have been given up by the prosecution agency, whereas only Bobby remains to be examined CRM No.M-14607 of 2011 (O&M) -2- and the case is being delayed by not producing said PW-Bobby. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Shalini Attri, D.A.G., Haryana. Statement of Raj Bala in the Court is an improvement over her original statement, which is to be appreciated in the context of other evidence. No doubt with Manoj turning hostile and PW-Randhir and Siri Parkash having not been examined, the case of prosecution remains at a weak footing depending upon the statement of Bobby, which is yet to be recorded. The next date for recording of evidence is stated to be 21.12.2011. As it is claimed by counsel for the petitioner that prosecution is intentionally avoiding to produce Bobby as a witness, as he is not a truthful witness, cannot be appreciated at this stage, but the period of detention i.e. 02 years and 09 months warrants the issuance of an advise to the trial Court to expeditiously dispose of the trial. It is ordered that in case the trial is not concluded within a period of two months after 21.12.2011, the trial Court will grant the concession of bail to the petitioner. 14.11. 2011 (M.M.S. BEDI) Jyoti 1 JUDGE