Abid vs State of Haryana

Alok Singh, J.—Present petition is filed seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 246 dated 26.7.2009 under Sections 392/397 IPC and

Section 25 of Arms Act (Sections 395/412 IPC and Sections 54 and 59 Arms Act added subsequently), Police Station Kundli, District Sonepat.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that Petitioner has been in custody since 3.8.2009.

Mr. Gaurav Dhir, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, has stated that all the prosecution witnesses have been examined except the one

witness i.e. owner of the vehicle, who can be examined at any time, therefore, this is not the stage to enlarge the Petitioner on bail.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, while taking me to Annexure P-6 page 31 has argued that even at the time of disposal of bail application of

Faisal by this Court vide order dated 17.2.2011, same arguments were advanced by learned State Counsel that entire evidence would be

concluded on 15.2.2011, however, it was not done. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has stated that despite of several dates fixed thereafter,

prosecution has failed to conclude the evidence.

Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has granted bail to co-accused Faisal vide order dated 17.2.2011 on the ground that prosecution has failed to

conclude the evidence.

Considering totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, petition is allowed. Let Petitioner be released on bail to the satisfaction of the

learned Trial Court.