CRM No.M-26780 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-11.10.2010 Vinod and Ferozdeen ...Petitioners Versus The State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Jitender Dhanda, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Vikas Malik, A.A.G.Haryana. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Having exercised their right of regular bail and lost in the Court of Session, petitioners Vinod son of Krishan and Ferozdeen son of Suffideen, have directed the present petition for regular bail in a case registered against them alongwith their other co-accused, vide FIR No.129 dated 22.5.2010, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 307, 323, 365 and 120-B read with section 149 IPC and sections 25, 27 and 30 of the Arms Act by the police of Police Station Agroha, Distt.Hissar, invoking the provisions of section 439 Cr.PC. 2. Concisely, the prosecution claimed that on the night of 21.5.2010 at about 10.15 P.M., accused Bobby alias Dinesh, Vinod, Feroze Luhar, Sandeep Godara, Virender Pandit, Pawan Bishnoi and Jai Singh came in a TATA Sumo being driven by Krishan Sura. They started beating Vicky son of Raj Kumar with their respective weapons. The complainant informed his brother Sandeep about the incident. The complainant party ran towards the hotel and found that Vicky was lying in the fields in an injured condition. They took him to Medical College and Hospital, Agroha for treatment. The case of the prosecution further proceeds that CRM No.M-26780 of 2010 2 in the meantime, all the accused came there armed with pistols, swords, lathis and jailis and caused injuries to the complainant party with their respective weapons. 3. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the prosecution that on 21.5.2010, all the accused caused injuries to the complainant party with their respective weapons. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of statement of the complainant Bintu son of Raj Kumar, the present case was registered against the present petitioners alongwith his other co-accused in the manner described here-in-above. 4. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 5. 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, the present petition deserves to be allowed in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 6. What is not disputed here is that during the course of investigation, no specific role is attributed to the petitioners. Neither they used nor any fire arm was recovered from their possession. All the allegations, having caused injuries to Vicky, which fall within the ambit of section 307 IPC, are attributed to the main accused Bobby, who was arrested and is in judicial custody. The allegations against the present petitioners are general in nature. Whether the provisions of sections 148 and 149 IPC are attracted against the petitioners, would be the moot point to be decided by the trial Court. 7. It is not a matter of dispute that the petitioners were arrested on 24.5.2010 and since then they are in judicial custody. As charges have not yet been framed against the accused, therefore, the conclusion of the trial will naturally take long time. There is no history of previous involvement of the petitioners in any such case. 8. Therefore, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above, to me, the CRM No.M-26780 of 2010 3 present petitioners are entitled to regular bail in the present 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate or in his absence the Duty Magistrate, Hisar. 10. The instant petition is disposed of accordingly. 11.10.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge