IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-27437 of 2009. [O&M] Date of Decision: 05th May, 2011. Rachhpal Singh & Ors. Petitioners through Mr. J.S.Chahal, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Anr. Respondents through Mr. T.S.Salana, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Navjeet Sodhi, Advocate, for the complainant. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] This petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in a private complaint No. 267 dated 31.07.2006 titled as Gurmej Singh Versus Laddi @ Jatinder Singh & Ors., under Sections 302/307/323/ 148/149 IPC pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurdaspur wherein the petitioners were initially summoned to face trial under Sections 304/325/323/148/149 IPC. Suffice it to mention that after notice and having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court vide order dated 15.07.2010 directed that the petitioners shall put in appearance before the learned trial Court on the next date fixed before it and in the event of their arrest, they shall be admitted to bail on their furnishing personal bonds and surety bonds each to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The petitioners have thereafter placed on record an amended petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. inter-alia explaining that since the charge under Section 302 IPC has also been added that the concession of bail already granted to them be further extended to include Section 302 IPC. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The contentious issue as to whether the petitioners or their co-accused are guilty of an offence under Section 302 IPC and/or 304-A IPC would be resolved by the Court of competent jurisdiction on appreciation of evidence to be led by the complainant on the one hand and the petitioners/their co-accused on the other. It is not expedient or desirable for this Court to express any opinion as it would unwittingly cause some prejudice to either of the parties. Suffice it to mention that no purpose would be achieved by taking the petitioners into judicial custody, more so when the conclusion of the trial will take some time. Since the complainant has already led the preliminary evidence, there is no likelihood of the petitioners tempering with the same. The petition is accordingly allowed and the order dated 15.07.2010 is made absolute with a further direction that the petitioners on their appearance before the trial Court shall be admitted to bail for the offence under Section 302 IPC also subject to their furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court, if already not furnished. The observations made here-in-above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Disposed of. Dasti. May 05, 2011. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE