IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-30262 of 2010 Date of Decision: 25.01.2011 Ombir @ Omi and another ........Petitioners Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. Amit Parashar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Gurvinder S. Sandhu, Asstt. Advocate General, Haryana. ****** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Prayer in the present application is for grant of regular bail to the petitioners namely Ombir @ Omi and Yashpal @ Kukku, who are accused in an FIR wherein a statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded of Idrish Khan son of Younis Khan wherein Ombir @ Omi has been alleged to have given several lathis blows on his left leg between knee and foot, which led to the fracture of his leg and Yashpal @ Kukku, who have given lathi blows on the wrist of his right hand and forearm and on elbow and also on the mouth. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as far as Ombir @ Omi is concerned, the injury has been found to be grievous but since it is with a lathi alone and the petitioner is in custody since 02.06.2010. The trial is not proceeding fast and, therefore, the petitioner should be released on bail as his continuance in the custody would not affect the trial at all. He further contends that Devi Singh, who is the main accused, has already been enlarged on bail by the trial Court on Criminal Misc. No.M-30262 of 2010 -2- 22.06.2010. As regards Yashpal @ Kukku, he contends that injury which have been attributed to have been found to be simple in nature and he is also in custody since 02.06.2010 and, therefore, prays for grant of bail. Counsel for the State on instructions from ASI Balwan Singh states that no other case is registered against the petitioners. Charge has been framed against them and the trial is under progress. The factual assertion made by the counsel for the petitioners could not be rebutted by the counsel for the State. Keeping in view the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the allegations and the nature of injury as well as the weapon of offence and since the charge has been framed and the trial is not likely to conclude soon, further continuance of the petitioners in custody is not required. The present application is allowed. The petitioners are directed to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court. 25.01.2011 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) Gagan JUDGE