Cr.Misc. M 26599 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Cr.Misc. M 26599 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : 22.1.2009 Kuldeep ......PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana and ......RESPONDENT PRESENT: Mr.Sanjiv Sheokand, Advocate Mr. SS Goripuria, DAG, Hry M.M.S.BEDI,J. The petitioner seeks the concession of regular bail in a case registered at the instance of Raj Kumar to the effect that his son Jasbir was attacked by 6-7 persons, who had come on motor cycles. They had caught hold of the deceased and inflicted injuries on his person with knives. The FIR was registered by Raj Kumar on the basis of information received by him from Narinder PW. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Narinder PW has already been examined as a witness but he does not specifically mention the petitioner to be present on the spot and also does not identify him, as such there is no evidence against him. Learned State counsel has contended that only one witness remains to be examined. It is also an admitted fact that the co-accused of the petitioner have been granted the concession of bail. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. There does Cr.Misc. M 26599 of 2008 2 appear to be any direct evidence against the petitioner. The case of the prosecution has to be tested on the basis of the circumstantial evidence and direct evidence before it as only one witness remains to be examined. It is not deemed appropriate to enter into the niceties of the trial to appreciate the evidence. However, keeping in view the nature of the evidence produced by the prosecution, in the interest of the justice while dismissing the petition, a direction is issued to the trial court to conclude the trial within a period of three months after the next date of hearing before it. January 22 ,2009 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE