NITIN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court for grant of regular bail in FIR No.605 dated 17.08.2018 registered under Sections 186, 307, 353, 332, 34 IPC IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act at Police Station Sadar, Gurugram.

(2.) It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR. It is on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused, wherein it is asserted that the petitioner is the person, who had supplied arms, which were used in the commission of the offence. It is on the basis of the said statement of the co-accused that the name of the petitioner figured during investigation and it is on that basis that the petitioner was arrested on 17.08.2018. He submits that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner and the trial is not likely to conclude in near future. Therefore, the petitioner be granted the concession of bail.

(3.) Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, asserts that out of 15 witnesses, 11 have already been examined, the next date of hearing is 23.10.2010, there are eight other cases registered against the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner being habitual offender, may not be granted the concession of bail. The factum of there being no recovery effected from the petitioner in the present case as also the custody period, which is more than two years, is not disputed.