Judgment Surya Kant, J. 1. The prayer in this petition is to release the petitioner on regular bail in FIR No.197 dated 13.7.2000, under section 392, 397, 120-B/34 ipc, registered at Police Station City, Yamuna Nagar. 2. As per the allegations contained in the FIR, the petitioner along with his co-accused entered the house of the complainant pretending that they were officials of the Electricity Department and had come to check the electricity-meter as there were complaints of electricity theft against the complainant. Having entered the house, one of the accused is alleged to have taken out his revolver and threatened the complainant and his family members with dire consequences and forcibly took away the golden jewellery and other valuable items from the house. 3. The petitioner was arrested and was thereafter granted bail by this Court on 11.9.2002. Meanwhile, the petitioner was arrested by the delhi Police on 21.3.2004 in some other case registered against him in delhi due to which he could not appear before the learned Additional sessions Judge at Yamuna Nagar on the date fixed and, thus, his bail bonds were cancelled on 29.10.2004. The petitioner, however, moved an application for bail on the ground that his non-appearance before the learned trial court on 29.10.2004 was beyond his control as he was in custody of the Delhi Police which failed to produce him before the court at yamuna Nagar. The aforementioned plea did not find favour with the learned Additional Sessions Judge, hence this petition. 4. On the asking of this Court as to how many such like cases are registered against the petitioner, Learned State Counsel has filed an affidavit of ASI Radhey Sham of P. S. City Yamuna Nagar in which it is stated that in two cases registered against the petiioner by the Delhi police, i. e. FIR No.124/2004, under section 186, 353, 307/34 IPC and Arms act, and in case FIR No.107/04, under section 452, 307, 323, 482/34 IPC and 25/27 of the Arms Act, the petitioner has since been acquitted by the courts on 21.12.2005 and 15.2.2006 respectively. However, the following four criminal cases (as per details in Annexure R-1/1) are still pending trial against him:- 4_685_TLP&H0_2006.htm It is also explained in the affidavit that one of the petitioners co-accused, namely, Sandeep is absconding and has been declared a P. O. on 9.12.2002. However, the following four criminal cases (as per details in Annexure R-1/1) are still pending trial against him:- 4_685_TLP&H0_2006.htm It is also explained in the affidavit that one of the petitioners co-accused, namely, Sandeep is absconding and has been declared a P. O. on 9.12.2002. It is vehemently argued by Learned State Counsel that the petitioner and his associates are alleged to be hardcore criminals who operate in and around Delhi. True it is that the petitioner could not appear before the learned trial court on 29.10.2004 for the reason that he was in custody of delhi police in some other criminal case. The cause of non-appearance, even if, prima-facie, justified, does not invoke any equity in his favour. From the nature of cases registered against the petitioner by the police of haryana, delhi and U. P. States, it appears desirable that the petitioner should not be enlarged on bail until the private prosecution witnesses, including the complainant, are examined. Consequently, the petition is dismissed at this stage.