Crl. Misc. No. M-15464 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-15464 of 2011 Date of Decision : July 26, 2011 Vijender @ Bijender .... Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Jitender Dhanda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sameer Singh, AAG, Haryana. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Pursuant to order of the preceding date, Mr. Hanif Qureshi, Senior Superintendent of Police, Hisar is present in person. He has explained that in communication received from the office of Advocate General, date of FIR was inadvertently mentioned as 17.06.2009 instead of 17.06.2008, and therefore, needful could not be done for the preceding date of hearing. Reply by affidavit of Senior Superintendent of Police, Hisar, filed today in Court, is taken on record. Copy given to the counsel opposite. Vijender @ Bijender has filed this petition for bail in case FIR No.204 dated 17.06.2008, under Sections 302, 304-B, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Crl. Misc. No. M-15464 of 2011 2 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Earlier bail petitions of the petitioner stand dismissed on merits. Notice in the instant petition was issued because the petitioner has been in custody for almost three years and it was stated that there has to be de novo trial because two additional accused have been summoned under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was fixed for framing of charge, when notice of motion was ordered to be issued on 01.06.2011. In reply filed on behalf of State, it has been stated that even after summoning of additional accused, seven prosecution witnesses have already been examined and seven other witnesses have been given up and now, only nine prosecution witnesses remain to be examined and there is likelihood of conclusion of prosecution evidence shortly. The case is now fixed before the trial court for 01.08.2011. Consequently, the ground of possible delay on account of de novo trial, on account of which notice of motion was issued in this petition, no longer subsists. The trial has progressed quite satisfactorily even after summoning of additional accused. In view of the aforesaid, no fresh ground for releasing the petitioner on bail is made out. Dismissed. July 26, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE