IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 17958 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: August 26, 2010. Kayam ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Haryana ...... RESPONDENT(s) Present: Mr. Sarfraj Hussain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S.Goripuria, D.A.G., Haryana. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) This is an application for regular bail filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in FIR No.23 dated 27.01.2010, under Sections 148/149/332/353/186/ 506/395/397/307/412/427 IPC and 25/54/59 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Ferozepur Jhirka, District Mewat. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The allegations against the petitioner-accused are that on 27.01.2010, Rattan Lal, Inspector, SHO Police Station Ferozepur Jhirka was present in the area of Kati Ghati in connection with investigation of FIR No.22 of 27.01.2010 under Sections 379/411/120-B/188 IPC. He had taken CRM NO.M-17958 of 2010 in custody dumpers bearing registration Nos.HR 55E 9851, HR 74 0523 and HR 27 0632, two dumpers make TATA without any number plate, all loaded with stones and one JCB yellow in colour. All these vehicles were loaded with stones allegedly extracted by illegal mining. In the meantime petitioner- accused alongwith co-accused reached there while they were armed with deadly weapons like Gandasa, Lathi and firearm and raised threat to the police party that if they would not release their vehicles, they would be shot at. Co-accused Kasam fired at police party and however, complainant escaped unhurt. Thereafter, Kasam asked petitioner-accused and other co- accused Jamshed, Tahir, Rasid, Fakru, Asru, Modhu, Usman and Farid to kill the members of police party and they also fired and used other weapons. Complainant suffered injury on right leg and Head Constable Jaspal suffered injury on left hand. The police party had taken shelter behind mountains and the accused had taken away the vehicles. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that no injury has been attributed to the present petitioner and that he has been continuing in custody since 04.04.2010 and that case is not likely to be decided in near future. Bail application has been opposed by learned counsel for the State on the plea that allegations against the petitioner-accused are serious in nature and he is likely to abscond if released on bail at this stage. Hence, keeping in view these facts and without expressing anything on the merit of the case, I am of the view that it is not such a case in which concession of bail should be granted to the accused at this stage. Hence, the same is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of merit. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) 2 CRM NO.M-17958 of 2010 August 26, 2010. JUDGE 'om' 3