Criminal Misc.-M No. 25584 of 2011 [1] IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.-M No. 25584 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 30.8.2011 Ram Krishan .. Petitioner v. State of Punjab .. Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. R. S. Rai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J. S. Brar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal, J. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, who is an accused in FIR No. 28 dated 11.10.2010, registered under Sections 302/307/201/323/148/149/120-B IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. He is in custody since 14.10.2010. The incident allegedly took place when Naib Tehsildar had gone at the spot for conducting auction of land of a judgment-debtor, where residents of the village and members of Bharat Kissan Union (Ekta), District Mansa had collected in number objecting to such an auction. Learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance upon an order passed by this Court in Criminal Misc.-M No. 20845 of 2011 –Vijay Kumar v. State of Punjab, submitted that co-accused, namely, Vijay Kumar, against whom identical allegations are there, has already been directed to be released on bail vide order dated 18.7.2011. The main accused, namely, Jeet Singh, to whom gun shot injury has been attributed to deceased-Pirthi Singh, is in custody. He further submitted that two other accused, namely, Shanti Pal @ Maghi and Parveen Kumar, against whom the allegations in the FIR are that they had caused gun shot injuries to Lachhman Singh, have also been directed to be released on bail by this court vide orders dated 19.4.2011 and 18.7.2011 passed in Criminal Misc.-M No. 2348 of 2011— Shanti Pal @ Maghi v. State of Punjab and Criminal Misc.-M No. 15049 of Criminal Misc.-M No. 25584 of 2011 [2] 2011 –Parveen Kumar v. State of Punjab, respectively. He further submitted that only one out of total 30 witnesses, cited by the prosecution, has been examined. Trial in the present case at present has been stayed by this court in a criminal revision filed by Subhash Mittal, Naib Tehsildar, whose name though was mentioned in the FIR, however, he was not challaned. He has been summoned to face trial in an application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the State did not dispute the fact that only one out of 30 prosecution witnesses has been examined till date. He further did not dispute the fact regarding grant of bail to co-accused, namely, Vijay Kumar, who is identically placed and also to Shanti Pal @ Maghi and Parveen Kumar, to whom specific injuries have been attributed. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the aforesaid submissions made by them, in my opinion, the petitioner also deserves concession of bail. He is directed to be released on furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Mansa. The petition stands disposed of. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 30.8.2011 mk