1) Crl. Misc. No.M-5564 of 2011 (O&M) Sukhbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2) Crl. Misc. No.M-8640 of 2011 (O&M) Parveen Bala Vs. State of Punjab Present : Mr. Bipan Ghai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mandeep Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Rajinder Mathur, A.A.G., Punjab. Mr. J.S. Bains, Advocate for the complainant. ******* AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This order shall dispose of two petitions i.e. CRM-M Nos.5564 and 8640 of 2011. These petitions have been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner(s) in case F.I.R. No.196 dated 23.08.2010 registered under Sections 419, 420, 409, 380, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Sections 13(1)(C), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act at Police Station City Rajpura, District Patiala. On 25.04.2011 the following contention was noticed:- “Mr. Bipin Ghai, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, assisted by Mr. Sandeep Gahlawat, Advocate, states that petitioner is in custody w.e.f. 27.08.2010. He has further stated that before the trial Court, three different dates were fixed, however, on the request of the learned PP, for no fault of the accused, prosecution witnesses were not examined. Mr. Ghai while placing certified copy of the Zimini Crl. Misc. No.M-5564 of 2011 (O&M) -2- order dated 18.04.2011, which is taken on record, contends that on 18.04.2011 also trial was adjourned on the request of the learned PP, although two prosecution witnesses were present before the Court. Learned Counsel while placing reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Kerala vs. Raneef reported in 2011(1)R.C.R. (Criminal) 381, has argued that if there is undue delay in the trial and trial is not likely to be concluded in near future, in the event of the rejection of the bail, time spent in the jail cannot be restored to the accused if ultimately accused is acquitted by the trial Court, regular bail must be granted to the accused.” Learned Assistant Advocate General on instructions from ASI Netar Singh has accepted that till date no evidence has been led but has argued that the matter is now fixed for 02.09.2011 for evidence. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioner(s) have now been in custody for the last one year and the trial has not yet started. In the circumstances, without going into the merit of the case, I deem it appropriate to release the petitioner(s) on regular bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate. Ordered accordingly. Petitions stand disposed of. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of a connected case. ( AJAY TEWARI ) August 26, 2011 JUDGE ashish