In the Punjab and Haryana High Court, at Chandigarh. CRM-M-296 of 2011 (O&M) Decided on July 14,2011 Smt.Santosh Devi and another -- Petitioners vs. The State of Haryana --Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Jitendere Dhanda,Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Sagar Deswal,AAG,A.Haryana. Rakesh Kumar Jain,J:(Oral) This is a petition for regular bail pending trial under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (for short,'Cr.P.C.') in a case registered vide FIR No.146 dated 26.6.2010 under Sections 302/323/148/149/ 201/506 of the IPC at Police Station Uchana, District Jind. Allegations against the petitioners are that they had slapped the wife of the deceased, namely Bimla. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners are in custody since 05.7.2010. After notice of motion, the learned State Counsel made a statement on 9.2.2011 that the case is fixed before the trial Court for recording the prosecution evidence. He prayed for an adjournment on the ground that some prosecution evidence was likely to be led on the said date. The case was again adjourned to 7.4.2011 on the request of learned counsel for the State. On 19.5.2011, it was alleged by the learned State CRM-M-296 of 2011 (O&M) -2- Counsel that the next date before the trial Court is 08.7.2011 for further evidence of the prosecution and after taking instructions from ASI Ranvir Singh, he submitted that an effort shall be made to examine the material prosecution witnesses at the earliest. Today, a statement is made by learned State Counsel on instructions from said ASI Ranvir Singh that all material witnesses i.e. Ramesh, Bimla and Rajesh have already been examined. He also submits that out of 24 witnesses, 10 have already been examined. He has admitted that so far, evidence collected against the petitioners is of giving slap to the wife of the deceased . In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, keeping in view the period of custody as well as role attributed to the petitioners and also the fact that material witnesses have already been examined, without observing anything on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for grant of regular bail to the petitioners. Hence, the present petition is allowed and both the petitioners are directed to be released on bail on their furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of CJM/Duty Magistrate,Jind. July 14,2011 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge