Crl.M.No.M 2993 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M 2993 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 23, 2010 Karnail Singh .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Swarn Tiwana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.48, dated 1.6.2008, under Sections 323/341/506/34 IPC, Section 308 IPC added on 5.6.2008, Section 325 IPC added on 19.6.2008 and Section 302 IPC added on 21.6.2008, registered at Police Station Longowal, District Sangrur. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that no head injury has been attributed to the petitioner as per the FIR and that only injury attributed to the petitioner is baton blow on the back of the deceased. Further argues that as per allegations in the FIR, head injury was received by fall. It has further been contended that as per medico legal report, there was no visible injury on the head. Further contended that only alleged eye-witness of the occurrence Jawala Singh, i.e. father of the injured-deceased, has already been examined in which he stated that he got recorded in his statement, Ex.D1, that only Avtar Singh and Balkar Singh Crl.M.No.M 2993 of 2010 (O&M) -2- threw Ranjit Singh (deceased) on the road and his head was struck against road by said pushing. Further contended that this witness also stated that he got recorded in his statement, Ex.D1, that Avtar Singh and Balkar Singh also gave danda blows to Ranjit Singh. It has further been contended that petitioner has been continuing in custody since 25.6.2008 and trial of the case is likely to take some time to conclude as only 6 out of 36 witnesses have been examined so far. Further argues that similarly placed co-accused, namely, Tak Singh, has already been granted regular bail by this Court in Crl.M.No.M 30389 of 2009 vide order dated 22.1.2010. Learned State counsel has not been able to controvert the aforementioned facts. However, he has opposed the bail application on the plea that injury has also been attributed to the present petitioner-accused. I have considered the aforementioned facts. The case of present petitioner is similar to the case of co- accused Tek Singh, who has already been granted bail by this Court. The alleged head injury, resulting into the death of Ranjit Singh, was received by fall. The same has not been attributed to the present petitioner. As per deposition of PW Jawala Singh, father of injured, Avtar Singh and Balkar Singh threw Ranjit Singh on the road and his head was struck on the road by said pushing. The only injury attributed to the present petitioner is simple injury with baton on the back of the deceased. He has been continuing in custody since 25.6.2008. Trial will take some time to conclude. Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition for regular bail filed by petitioner- Karnail Singh is accepted. Bail to the satisfaction of CJM/Duty Magistrate, Sangrur. 23.3.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge