CRM No. M-23398 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-23398 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.10.2009 Kushal Pal ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. KDS Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Dhir, AAG, Haryana. Rajan Gupta, J (oral). This is a petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in a case registered against the petitioner under Sections 332, 353, 307, 223, 224, 225 read with Section 34 IPC and 25 Arms Act, at Police Station Manesar, District Gurgaon, vide FIR No.382 dated 28th October, 2006. The allegation in the FIR is that on 28th October, 2006 at about 7.00 A.M., an accused, namely, Anand alias Antu was taken from the District Jail, Bhondsi (Gurgaon) by the police to be produced before the Fast Track Court at Kishangarh Bass, Alwar (Rajasthan) as date of hearing was fixed there before Fast Track Court. On reaching Kishangarh, it was found that there was a court holiday. Resultantly, the accused was produced at the residence of the Judge/Presiding Officer of the Fast Track Court, who adjourned the hearing to 30th October, 2006. CRM No. M-23398 of 2009 2 Thereafter, when the police party was on its way back alongwith the accused, they were assaulted by some persons who also fired at Constable Ram Chander. One bullet is stated to have hit the stomach of the said constable in the stomach. The assailants succeeded in getting the accused released from the custody of police officials. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that name of the petitioner does not figure in the FIR and he has been in incarceration for a fairly long time. He, thus, deserves to be enlarged on bail. The prayer for bail has, however, been opposed by the learned State counsel. He has submitted that a very serious crime has been committed by the petitioner alongwith co-accused. This apart, according to learned counsel, the petitioner is involved in three other FIRs. He has thus prayed for dismissal of the bail application. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. I am of the considered view that in view of the nature of the allegations levelled in the FIR, the petitioner is not entitled to concession of bail. The petitioner alongwith co-accused is stated to have facilitated the escape of an undertrial from the custody of the police. The police party was fired upon in the incident, due to which a constable suffered a bullet injury in the stomach. This apart, petitioner is stated to be involved in three other cases i.e. FIR No.145 dated 13.3.2002, under Section 379 IPC, Police Station Sadar, Gurgaon, FIR No.189 of 2002, under Section 395 IPC, Police Station Tezara (Rajasthan) and FIR CRM No. M-23398 of 2009 3 No.23 dated 9.1.2004, under Sections 399, 402 IPC and 25/54/59 Arms Act, Police Station Sadar, Gurgaon. I, thus, find no ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE October 22, 2009 'rajpal'