IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-35717 of 2009 Date of Decision: February 16, 2010 Ravi Kumar Sindhu .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. J.S. Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.67 dated 20.3.2009 under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471 IPC registered with Police Station, Sushant Lok, Gurgaon. Crl. Misc. No. M-35717 of 2009 [2] Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has been in custody since 4.8.2009. The petitioner is working as Cook in Sarvodya Hospital, Sector 8, Faridabad. The petitioner is young man of 24 years of age, and therefore, deserves to be released on bail. Learned counsel for the respondent- State, on instructions from Jagdish Rai, Assistant Sub Inspector, contends that the petitioner is involved in six other cases of similar nature in Delhi. It has further been stated that the case is fixed for prosecution evidence on 2.3.2010. I have considered the rival contentions. Modus operandi of the petitioner is that shortly after delivery of American Express Card by the Blue Dart Courier Company, the petitioner wearing similar clothes came to the house of the complainant and asked for return of the card as the Bank or Courier Company wanted to do something. The petitioner gave a letter of acknowledgement with Blue Dart with his name and mobile number and said that card would be returned to the complainant in two hours. The complainant gave the credit card to the petitioner-accused. When the credit card was not Crl. Misc. No. M-35717 of 2009 [3] received, the complainant called American Express Bank in the evening which informed that the card has already been misused. The petitioner is involved in impersonation and forgery and caused loss. Case is fixed at the trial stage for 2.3.2010. The petitioner is involved in six other cases of similar nature. In view of the above, I do not find any ground to allow bail to the petitioner. The Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within four months of the next date of hearing i.e. 2.3.2010 in view of the fact that the petitioner is in custody. (AJAI LAMBA) February 16, 2010 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?