CRM Nos.M-14524, 14602 & 16085 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. CRM No.M-14524 of 2010 Kalua alias Rambhul son of Mahipal ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent 2. CRM No.M-14602 of 2010 Virodhi alias Ombir son of Mahipal ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent 3. CRM No.M-16085 of 2010 Lala alias Lal Ram son of Mahipal ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent Date of Decision:-28.9.2010 CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Tarun Aggarwal, Senior D.A.G. Haryana. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) As identical points for the grant of regular bail are involved in all the aforesaid petitions, arising out of the same case/FIR, therefore, I propose to decide the same, vide this common order, in order to avoid the repetition of the facts. 2. Having exercised their right of regular bail and lost in the Court of Session, petitioner Kalua alias Ramphul; Virodhi alias Ombir and Lala alias Lal Ram sons of Mahipal, have directed the above indicated separate petitions for regular bail in a case registered against them and their other co-accused namely CRM Nos.M-14524, 14602 & 16085 of 2010 2 Rohtash alias Rodhi, vide FIR No.241 dated 1.11.2009, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 323, 341 and 307 read with section 34 IPC and section 25 of the Arms Act, by the police of Police Station Chandhut, Distt.Faridabad, invoking the provisions of section 439 Cr.PC. 3. Concisely, the prosecution claimed that on 30.10.2009, petitioners- accused Virodhi and Lala armed with lathis, accused Rohtash alias Rodhi and Kaluwa also came there and caused injuries to complainant Surender Singh in order loot him. According to the prosecution that thereafter accused Virodhi exhorted his co-accused Rohtash to fire upon the complainant. Accused Rohtash fired a shot, which hit at right thigh of the complainant. 4. Levelling a variety of allegations, in all, the prosecution case is that the petitioners-accused caused injuries to the complainant with their respective weapons. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of statement of complainant Surender Singh, the present case was registered against the accused, in the manner described here-in-above. 5. Notice of the petitions was issued to the State. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, these petitions deserve to be accepted in this context. 7. At the very outset, the learned State counsel has produced certified copy of the order dated 20.9.2010, vide which, the Additional Sessions Judge held that no offence under section 307 IPC is made out and the other offences, for which, the accused have been sent to face trial, are triable by the Court of Magistrate. The case was sent back to the JMIC Palwal for trial. Meaning thereby, all the offences, alleged against the petitioners-accused, are now triable by the Court of Magistrate. They were arrested on 25.12.2009 and since then they are in judicial custody. They are no longer required to be further detained in jail for any purpose. There is no history of previous involvement of the petitioners in any such CRM Nos.M-14524, 14602 & 16085 of 2010 3 case. 8. So, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above, to me, the present petitioners are entitled to regular bail in the obtaining circumstances of the instant case. 9. In the light of the aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial of the case, the petitioners are directed to be released on bail on their furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. 10. The instant petitions are disposed of accordingly. 28.9.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge