IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc. No.M-21887 of 2010 Date of decision: 13.09.2010 Mukesh Kumar. .. Petitioner Versus State of Haryana. .. Respondent Present:- Mr.Ivneet Singh Pabla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Vikram Jain, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent-State. * * * * 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (Oral) At the time of issuing of notice, learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that similarly situated co-accused was already allowed bail on the ground that the complainant had made a statement before the trial Court as PW-1 that he was not one of the persons as mentioned in the FIR and is not involved. A similar statement has also been made qua the present petitioner. Whereas, PW-1 has not been examined qua the petitioner because the petitioner was only arrested thereafter i.e. after the statement of PW-1 qua the co-accused had already been recorded. Thus, the petitioner cannot claim parity with co- accused. Dismissed at this stage. September 13, 2010 (NIRMALJIT KAUR) sukhpreet JUDGE