CRM M 32360 of 2010 and connected case 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- Date of decision: 08.12.2010 1. CRM M 32360 of 2010 Amit alias Montu ........ Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent(s) 2. CRM M 33570 of 2010 Vikas alias Bholu ........ Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. R S Tacoria, Advocate for the petitioner (in CRM M 32360 of 2010) Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Advocate for the petitioner (in CRM M 33570 of 2010) Ms Priyanka Dalal, AAG, Haryana for the respondent - State -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) This order shall dispose of both these aforesaid petitions as the same arise out of FIR No. 353 dated 15.08.2010 under Section 395, 397 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Sadar Bahadurgarh, District CRM M 32360 of 2010 and connected case 2 Jhajjar. In these petitions, both the petitioners, namely, Amit alias Montu and Vikas alias Bholu, respectively, pray for grant of regular bail in the aforesaid FIR. It was contended that a bare reading of the FIR reveals that the present petitioners have been named in the FIR. The allegations do not appear to be probable as the accused have been named in the FIR by the complainant, himself, a truck driver, who belongs to U.P. While opposing the bail applications of the said petitioners, learned counsel for the State, on instruction informs the Court that in fact a blood stained vest was recovered from petitioner-Vikas. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the complainant was injured. He was taken to the Hospital. Thus, how the said vest came to be in the possession of the said Vikas is not explained. Amit alias Montu (petitioner in CRM M 32360 of 2010) is a student of MCA, whereas, Vikas alias Bholu (petitioner in CRM M 33570 of 2010) is pursuing Bachelor of Technology (Final Year). Moreover, the complainant who is a driver of the Tanker belongs to the Uttar Pradesh. The question of knowing the petitioners does not arise. The contention that the petitioners had altercation with the police and therefore, it was on account of the said fact that they were enroped in the present FIR along with four other accused persons cannot be totally ruled out at this stage. Thus, the version put forward by the prosecution does not appear to have taken place the way it has been presented in the FIR. In any case, there is no other case pending against the petitioners. The challan has CRM M 32360 of 2010 and connected case 3 been filed and the charges have also been framed. The petitioners are in custody since 15.08.2010. Bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhajjar. A photocopy of the order be placed on the connected file. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 08.12.2010 mohan