VINEY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by this Court on 4th October, 1995 has since been complied with and one of the alleged two eye-witnesses, Vijay Kumar has been examined and the prosecution has given up the other witness namely Tarsem Singh. Learned counsel submits that as per the allegations made in the FIR, it has not been alleged that the petitioner was aware that the main accused Bobby was having a knife at the time when the offence was committed. He further submits that even as per the allegations made in the FIR, there was no lalkara in this case. He, therefore, contends that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. In support of his contention the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Sushil v. State of U.P., 1995(1) Recent Criminal Reports 158.

(2.) LEARNED AAG, Haryana, submits that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail as there are clear allegations against him also.

(3.) FROM the FIR I find that there is no allegation against the petitioner that he was aware that the main accused Bobby was carrying a knife nor there is any lalkara. Further the petitioner has been in custody since February, 1995. As stated hereinabove, one of the eye-witnesses has been examined and the other has been given up.