CRM No. M-23946 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CRM No. M-23946 of 2008 Date of Decision: 18.2.2009 Mohan Singh .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. C. Puri Present:- Mr. S.S. Rangi , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P. S. Bajwa, AAG, Punjab. K. C. Puri, J (Oral) As per allegations of the prosecution, applicant gave two dang blow upon Harbhajan Singh on the elbow of his left arm and second blow on the wrist of his right arm and it is alleged that Harbhajan Singh son of Puran Singh and Gulab Singh gave many injuries from the dang in their hands upon uncle of complainant i.e Harbhajan Singh which hit on his right temple near left eye, right bicep, Sharkanj of left leg, on right flank and right scapular region and three blow on his waist. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that case of the petitioner is similar to that of Balwant Singh. He was aged about 65 years and attributed injury on the non vital part. So, the petitioner is entitled to concession of bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that injury no. 23 and 25 which are sufficient to cause death have not been attributed to the petitioner and on that count, the petitioner is entitled to concession of bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Division Bench authority in CRA No. 132-DB of 2007 and has relied upon the following observation:- “Therefore, every trial Court should consider release of accused on bail if 180 days have passed and the trial is not nearing conclusion. Trial Court must be satisfied that the accused will not tamper with evidence or win over witnesses and shall not abscond. Trial Courts should devise ways and means that the CRM No. M-23946 of 2008 2 accused does not misuse bail. Therefore, bail ought to be considered by the trial Court itself after 180 days from the date of commencement of the prosecution evidence.” I have carefully considered the said contention and do not find any force in the same. Case of the petitioner is not equivalent to that of Balwant Singh. The petitioner has been attributed injury on the temple near left eye and many other injuries. The petitioner has taken active part in the occurrence and has given injury even on the vital part of the deceased. From the perusal of the abovesaid observation, the Division Bench of this Court has held that trial Court should consider grant of bail after 180 days. In the authority Vijay Kumar v. Narendra & Ors. (2002) 9 SCC 364: JT 2004 Supp.(1) SC 60, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the Court while considering the prayer for bail, must look into the relevant factors i.e the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence and the desirability of releasing the accused on bail after he has been convicted for committing serious offence of murder, etc.; So, I am of the considered view that petitioner is not entitled to concession of bail. Dismissed. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial preferably within six months. February 18, 2009 ( K. C. Puri ) mamta Judge