CRM-M No. 2127 of 2011 **** Parveen Kumar vs. State of Haryana Present: Mr. Chanchal K. Singla, Advocate for Mr. R.S.Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Shalini Attri, DAG, Haryana. **** This is a petition for regular bail filed in case bearing FIR No. 226 dated 27.08.2010, under Sections 302, 452, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Sector 5, Gurgaon. On 31.01.2011 the following order was passed:- “ Learned counsel states that the petitioner has been implicated on the ground that the main accused had made a telephone call to him, however, as per learned counsel there is no evidence for the same. Further states that the petitioner is a student and has now been in custody since 29.08.2010. Notice of motion. Mr. Man Mohan Sika, DAG, Haryana, at the asking of the Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to supply two copies of the petition to the learned DAG during the course of the day. Adjourned to 01.03.2011.” Learned DAG, on instructions from ASI Manjit Singh, has stated that the only evidence to link the petitioner with the crime is the disclosure statement. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner would have no reason to be in contact with the accused since both the accused and the deceased were labourers while the petitioner is a student. CRM-M No. 2127 of 2011 -2- Learned DAG has also argued that the charge has been framed and that there are 17 witnesses who are to depose. In the circumstances, without going into the merits of the case considering the fact that the petitioner has now been in custody for 7 months and the prospects of the speedy trial are bleak and also the fact that the petitioner was not named in the FIR, I deem it appropriate to grant the concession of bail to the petitioner. Bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Petition stands disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) JUDGE March 25, 2011 sunita