IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-16075 of 2009 Date of decision : 2.7.2009 Mukesh … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondents Coram : Hon’ble Mr.Justice Augustine George Masih Present: Mr.Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Gaurav Dhir, AAG, Haryana. Mr.R.K.Dahiya, Advocate for the complainant. Augustine George Masih, J. (Oral) Prayer in the present petition is for grant of regular bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been alleged to have fired at the complainant with his gun, as per statement of the complainant made in the FIR, but no recovery has been effected from the petitioner of the weapon which is alleged to have been used by him during the firing. He contends that it has not been brought on record that the deceased, Parveen, was shot by the bullet which was not fired from the country made pistol, which was handed over by the complainant and the same is alleged to be belonging to the Parveen himself. He contends that there is no evidence against the petitioner except that he was present at the spot where the firing took place. The enmity between the parties, has also been admitted as alleged in the FIR and contends that not only the petitioner but even the ladies of the household have been involved in the case. Learned State counsel does not dispute the factual position which has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, he submits that charge have been framed on 14.3.2009 and thereafter, the case was fixed for evidence on 27.5.2009 when the adjournment had to be granted on medical certificate being submitted by one of the accused. He further submits that case is now fixed for 2.9.2009 for evidence. Crl.Misc.No.M-16075 of 2009 Learned counsel for the complainant submits that enmity between the parties is writ large and even during investigation and thereafter till the petitioner was not arrested; police protection was provided and there is grave apprehension of danger to the lives of the family members of the complainant. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. In view of the fact that the submission, as has been made by the counsel for the petitioner, which has not been rebutted by the other side, shows that the allegations which have been leveled against the petitioner is debateable and would be considered and proved before the trial court by evidence to be led. The material witness i.e. complainant is yet to be examined. He is a well trained and an able bodied person and is serving in ITBP in Uttarkashi who requires no protection nor can be influenced by the petitioner. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Any of the observations made above, shall not be taken as expression of opinion on the merits of the case and shall not be binding upon the trial Court. [ Augustine George Masih ] Judge 02.7.2009 sd 2