CRM -M No. 25820 of 2009 Dilwar alilas Billu vs. State of Haryana Present: Mr.N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Ajay Singh Ghangas, Addl.AG, Haryana. *** This is a petition for regular bail in a case bearing FIR No.230 dated 18.10.2007, under Sections 148, 149, 302, 109, 120-B IPC and under Section 25 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Sadar Narnaul, District Mahendergarh. On 1.12.2009 the following order was passed:- “Mohinder Singh, S.P.Mahendergarh is present in Court in terms of order dated 19.11.2009. He expressed his regret on the absence of the investigating officer and has informed the court that the departmental proceedings have been initiated against him on 29.11.2009. He further assured the Court that he will pull up the officers under his command to be extra cautious with regard to the court cases. In my opinion his explanation is satisfactory and he is discharged from appearance. This is a petition for regular bail. Main argument of learned counsel is that the eye witnesses have not supported the prosecution version. Learned DAG states that complainant is yet to be examined and that the case is fixed for tomorrow. In the circumstances adjourned to 07.12.2009. On 7.12.2009 the following order was passed:- “On 1.12.2009 the prayer for grant of bail was deferred since it was said that the complainant was yet to be examined and that the case was fixed for 02.12.2009. Today it has been brought to my notice that the trial could not continue on 2.12.2009 because two of the CRM -M No. 25820 of 2009 -2- accused persons were not present before the Court. It has been further disclosed that the matter is now fixed for 14.12.2009. In the circumstances case is adjourned to 15.12.2009. It is made clear that the application for grant of bail shall be considered on that date irrespective of whether the witnesses are examined or not. On 15.12.2009 the following order was passed:- “Learned Addl. Advocate General states that on 14.12.2009 the accused were duly present; and after recording their presence they were directed to be detained in the jail at Narnaul and the case was fixed for 18.12.2009 for recording evidence. Undertakes to positively examine the complainant on 18.12.2009. To come up on 21.12.2009.” Even today it is stated that the complainant could not be examined. It is not disputed that the petitioner has been in custody for 14 months. In view of the orders passed earlier and in view of the period for which the petitioner has already been in custody, I deem it appropriate to allow this application. Bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Narnaul. . (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE December 21, 2009 sunita