CRM-M-26994 of 2011 - 1 - CRM-M-17385 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM-M-26994 of 2011 Date of Decision:09.09.2011 Manav Soni . . .Petitioner Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh . . . Respondent ***** CRM-M-17385 of 2011 Date of Decision:09.09.2011 Harjinder Singh . . .Petitioner Versus State of UT, Chandigarh . . . Respondent ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.Akshay Bhan, Advocate, for the petitioner (in CRM-M-26994 of 2011). Mr.M.K. Dogra, Advocate, for the petitioner (in CRM-M-17385 of 2011). Mr.P.K. Khindria, Advocate, for UT, Chandigarh. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This order shall dispose of two bail applications bearing CRM-M-26994 of 2011 titled as “Manav Soni Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh” and CRM-M-17385 of 2011 titled as “Harjinder Singh Vs. State of UT, Chandigarh” in which the petitioners have prayed bail pending trial in a case registered vide FIR No.11 dated 12.1.2011 under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 24/54/59 of the Arms Act (added later on) at Police Station Manimajra, Union Territory, Chandigarh. CRM-M-26994 of 2011 - 2 - CRM-M-17385 of 2011 The allegations are that the petitioners along with co-accused committed dacoity in the Tanishq jewellery shop, SCO No.43, Manimajra, Chandigarh which is dealing in gold and diamond jewellery since 2007. It is argued that the petitioners have been falsely implicated on the alleged statement of the co-accused. Since the challan has been presented and there are 37 prosecutions witnesses out of whom no one has been examined so far, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioners in custody. Learned counsel for the respondent in reply has submitted that Manav Soni has got recovered 152 diamond and gold bracelets weighing 891.2 grams other gold and diamond articles weighing 1692 grams besides cash of `2.5 lacs and accused Harjinder, who was driving the vehicle providing mobility to the dacoits also got recovered gold ornaments. Without making any observations on merit but keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it to be a fit case for bail as not a single witness of prosecution has been examined so far, therefore, there is every likelihood of the petitioners of influencing or tampering the prosecution evidence and there is every likelihood of their fleeing away from justice. Hence, both the bail applications are hereby dismissed. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of another connected case. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) SEPTEMBER 09, 2011 JUDGE Vivek