IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-33329 of 2009 Date of Decision: February 01, 2010 Khazana & Others .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. R.S. Tacoria, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.73 dated 15.6.2008 under Sections 148, 149, 323, 325, 302, 506 IPC registered with Police Station, Rajound, District Kaithal. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner No.1, Khazana Singh, is 70 years of age. Case of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 (Kapoora and Rajesh) would be at par with that of Rajiv and Vikram, co-accused. Rajiv and Vikram have already been allowed bail. Crl. Misc. No. M-33329 of 2009 [2] Learned counsel for the respondent- State, on instructions from Dharamvir Singh, Sub Inspector, has not denied the facts as stated on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioners. It is however stated that in the subsequent statement, even the petitioners have been ascribed injury on the person of Bheera (deceased). The injuries, however, were blunt in nature. It is further the case of respondent- prosecution that Surat gave injury on the head of Bheera (deceased). I have considered the rival contentions. It is not in dispute that Rajiv and Vikram have been allowed bail. As per the FIR version, none of the petitioners has been attributed injury on the person of Bheera (deceased). In subsequent statement, the petitioners have been ascribed injuries. The fact that FIR is at the instance of Zora Singh (complainant) who is also an injured eye witness, the circumstance can be taken into account for limited purpose of consideration of bail to the petitioners. There seems to be improvement in the prosecution case at a later stage. In view of the above, this petition Crl. Misc. No. M-33329 of 2009 [3] is allowed however anything said hereinabove is not an observation on facts of the case and circumstances have been considered only in the scope of Section 439 Cr.P.C. Bail to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. (AJAI LAMBA) February 01, 2010 JUDGE avin