CRM No.M-30436 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-11.11.2010 Jaskaran Singh son of Babu Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Parminder Singh-I, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Vikas Malik, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Invoking the provisions of section 439 Cr.PC, petitioner Jaskaran Singh son of Babu Singh, has filed the present petition for regular bail in a case registered against him alongwith his other co-accused, by virtue of FIR No.149 dated 29.7.2010, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 148, 307 and 323 read with section 149 IPC and section 25 of the Arms Act, by the police of Police Station Kalanwali, District Sirsa. 2. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this context. 4. What is not disputed here is that the offence punishable under section 307 IPC was deleted and section 285 IPC was added, which is clear from the order dated 24.9.2010 (Annexure P1) of SDJM Dabwali, the operative part of which is as under:- “However, on going through allegations against the accused, it is seen that initially the accused were booked to face trial under Sections 307/323/148/149 IPC read with Section 25 of the Arms Act in cross-version CRM No.M-30436 of 2010 2 in the present FIR but in investigation section 307 IPC was deleted and Section 285 IPC was added. It also shows that illegal arm was used by the accused persons. Even, if this arm was not used by applicant/accused Jaskaran and no recovery is to be effected from him but considering the fact that he was member of an unlawful assembly who also used illegal arm in the crime, he cannot be granted concession of bail today itself. So, seeing the nature of offence committed by the accused, the bail application moved by him stands dismissed. Pending investigation, accused is hereby remanded to judicial custody till 8.10.2010 and be produced before the court on the date fixed.” 5. Once the offence under section 307 IPC is deleted, then the remaining offences alleged against the petitioner are bailable. Moreover, the petitioner was arrested on 24.9.2010 and since then he is in judicial custody. No specific role or overt act is attributed to the petitioner. As even challan has not yet been presented, therefore, the conclusion of trial would naturally take long time. There is no history of previous involvement of the petitioner in any such case. 6. Therefore, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as indicated here-in-above, to me, the present petitioner is entitled to regular bail in the obtaining circumstances of the instant case. 7. In the light of the aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial of the case, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate or in his absence, the Duty Magistrate, Sirsa. 8. The instant petition is disposed of accordingly. 11.11.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge