JUDGMENT Mr. Ram Chand Gupta, J.: (Oral) - The present petition has been filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.77 dated 19.8.2009 under Sections 302, 120-B, 148 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station Cantt. Ferozepur, District Ferozepur. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, dismissing the bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner. 3. Brief allegations are that on the night of 18.08.2009 at about 10.00 PM someone knocked at the door of the house of complainant. Brother of complainant Aman (deceased) opened the door. He was followed by complainant and his father Ram Kishan and they saw that Kamal Kochar co-accused was there carrying a revolver or a pistol in his hand and he fired towards Aman which hit on his chest. Present petitioneraccused and co-accused Sunny were also present at that time along with main accused Kamal Kochar and on Lalkara being raised by them, fire-arm injury was caused by co-accused Kamal Kochar. Thereafter, all of them ran away in a car and on the motorcycle parked nearby. According to the complainant, petitioner along with co-accused had visited his house to finish him as he was a witness in earlier murder case in which co-accused Kamal Kochar was accused. 4. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been continuing in custody since 5.1.2010 and that no injury has been attributed to him and only Lalkara has been attributed to him. He further contended that main accused Kamal Kochar was found innocent by the police and however, he has now been summoned by learned trial Court by allowing application of prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. He further contended that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. 5. Bail application has been opposed by learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant on the plea that petitioner has been involved in as many as 11 cases besides the present one, details of which have been given in the reply filed on behalf of the State. 5. Bail application has been opposed by learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant on the plea that petitioner has been involved in as many as 11 cases besides the present one, details of which have been given in the reply filed on behalf of the State. Hence, it has been contended that petitioner is likely to abscond and likely to pressurize the prosecution witnesses, if released on bail. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the State that live cartridges of the fire-arm used in the crime were recovered from the possession of petitioner-accused. 6. Hence, keeping in view these facts and without expressing anything on the merit of the case, I am of the view that it is not such a case in which concession of bail should be granted to the accused. There is no merit in the instant application for bail filed by petitioner Bau. The same is, hereby, dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------