CRM No.M-33215 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-22.11.2010 Balbir Singh son of Shree Chand ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Jai Vir Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Vikas Malik, A.A.G., Haryana. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Invoking the provisions of section 439 Cr.PC, petitioner Balbir Singh son of Shree Chand has instituted the instant petition for regular bail in a case registered against him alongwith his other co-accused, vide FIR No.107 dated 6.7.2010 for commission of the offences punishable under sections 148, 307, 323, 452 and 506 read with section 149 IPC by the police of Police Station Bhondsi, Distt.Gurgaon. 2. Concisely, the prosecution claimed that on 6.7.2010, there was an election of member of Gram Panchayat of the village. Ganeshi Lal was declared elected from the reserve quota. To celebrate his success, Mahabir alongwith petitioner Balbir Singh and other persons were going to the temple for offering parshad. As soon as, they reached in front of the house of Bhagmal son of Singh Ram at about 7.00 P.M., in the meantime, some scuffle had taken place between both the parties. They started pelting brick bats on each other. PWs Bhagmal, Satpal and Pardeep sustained injuries in the occurrence. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the cross cases were registered against both the parties, as detailed here-in-above. 3. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. CRM No.M-33215 of 2010 2 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this regard. 5. What is not disputed here is that the incident erupted at the spur of the moment without any motive. No specific role or overt act is attributed to the petitioner. It appears to be a case of free fight between the parties. They caused injuries to each other with the brick bats after declaration of result of Gram Panchayat. Moreover, it is a case of cross version. Which of the parties was the aggressor, would be the moot point to be decided during the course of trial by the trial Court. The petitioner was arrested on 19.8.2010 and since then he is in judicial custody. No useful purpose would be served to further detain him in jail. As even charges have not yet been framed, therefore, conclusion of trial will naturally take long time. There is no history of previous involvement of the petitioner in any such case. 6. So, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial, to me, the present petitioner is entitled to regular bail in the obtaining circumstances of the instant case. 7. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the petition for regular bail is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of Area Magistrate, Gurgaon. 22.11.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge