Criminal Misc.No.M-24959 of 2008(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (i) Criminal Misc.No.M-24959 of 2008(O&M) Date of decision : 22.12.2011 Harjinder Singh ....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and others ....RESPONDENT(S) (ii) Criminal Misc.No.M-12839 of 2011(O&M) Jhirmal Singh ....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab ....RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN *** Present : Mr.Ashok Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner in Criminal Misc.No.24959 of 2008 and for the complainant in Criminal Misc.No.12839 of 2011. Mr.Vipin Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner in Criminal Misc.No.12839 of 2011 and for the complainant in Criminal Misc.No.24959 of 2008. Mr.D.S.Mann, A.A.G., Punjab. *** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J This order shall dispose of two petitions bearing Criminal Misc.No.24959 of 2008 Harjinder Singh versus State of Punjab and others (first petition) and Criminal Misc.No.12839 of 2011 Jhirmal Singh versus State of Punjab (second petition). The first petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for seeking quashing of the order dated 29.07.2008 (Annexure P-6), passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, vide which the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the prosecution has been dismissed. The second petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.for grant of bail in case FIR No.105 dated 05.06.2007, registered under Sections 302, 323, 427, 148, 149 IPC, at Police Station Sadar, Gurdaspur, Criminal Misc.No.M-24959 of 2008(O&M) 2 District Gurdaspur, Punjab. In the first petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is non-speaking as no reason has been assigned for dismissal of the application. At this stage, Sh.Vipin Mahajan, Advocate, has submitted that the learned Court below had also observed that the prosecution may file another application after bringing some more co-gent evidence. He submits that now the prosecution has already led much more evidence than before and the prosecution could easily file another application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the first petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 29.07.2008 is set aside. The prosecution/complainant, if so advised, may move an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on the basis of evidence, which has been collected uptil now for the purpose of summoning additional accused. It is also further directed that in case such an application is filed by the prosecution, the learned trial Court shall decide the same within a period of two months thereafter. In so far as the second petition is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he is in custody for the last four years for causing simple injury to an injured. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the second petition, bail application is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) December 22, 2011 JUDGE mamta