Crl. Misc. No.M-31762 of 2010 (O&M) Pawanjit Vs. State of Haryana Present : Mr. Bhag Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manmohan Sikka, D.A.G., Haryana. ******* AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case F.I.R. No.180 dated 23.7.2009 registered under Sections 302, 323, 353, 186, 325, 148, 149 and 109 IPC at Police Station Sadar, Narwana. On 09.12.2010, the following order was passed:- “The petitioner is alleged to have delivered a speech on 19.03.2009, in the village exhorting all the villagers not to leave Ved Parkash for having married Sonia. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the marriage had allegedly taken place on 22.04.2009. The couple had sought protection from the High Court by filing a petition but subsequently Sonia had returned to her maternal home. The incident of attack on the Warrant Officer and Ved Pal is dated 22.07.2009 after 4 months of the alleged speech. The application for bail filed by the petitioner has been dismissed, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner remained a proclaimed offender for some period and that he had instigated the other accused to kill Ved Parkash. In view of the previous conduct of the petitioner, it appears that his liberty may hamper the proceedings of recording of evidence by the main witnesses. Out of 30 witnesses, 16 have already been examined and the Crl. Misc. No.M-31762 of 2010 (O&M) -2- next date before the trial Court is stated to be fixed for today. In peculiar circumstances of this case, I deem it appropriate to adjourn this case for 18.01.2011. The stage of the trial i.e., the number of witnesses examined be intimated on the next date of hearing.” Thereafter in the last month admittedly only one witness could be examined. It is now stated that the learned trial Court has summoned some other persons as an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. but that order has been challenged in this Court whereupon the operation thereof has been stayed. As per learned counsel for the petitioner this would unnecessarily imply indefinite delay in the trial since the trial cannot really proceed till the order is either upheld or set aside finally. Learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that the petitioner undertakes to completely retire from the public life till the conclusion of this trial. Keeping in mind the above said fact and that the petitioner has now been in custody for more than 16 months, I deem it appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail even while granting liberty to the prosecution to seek cancellation thereof in the event of any further evidence of inflammatory conduct by the petitioner. Ordered accordingly. Bail to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. Petition stands disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) February 10, 2011. JUDGE ashish