In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. CRM-M 24251 of 2009 Decided on 05.10.2009. Jhirmal Singh -- Petitioner vs. State of Punjab --Respondent. Present: Mr.Vipan Mahajan,Advocate,for the petitioner Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl.A.G.Punjab Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: This is a petition under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( for short,'Cr.P.C.') for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 105 dated 05.6.2007, registered under Sections 302,323,427,148,149 IPC, at Police Station, Sadar Gurdaspur. (offence under Section 427 IPC added later on). In the same case, the petitioner had earlier filed CRM 20523 of 2008, in which following order was passed:- “ In this petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner seeks bail in case F.I.R.No.105 dated 05.06.2007, under Sections 302,323,427,148,149 IPC, at Police Station, Sadar Gurdaspur. The petitioner was armed with a 'Gandasi'. He along-with his co-accused Harbhajan Singh, who was armed with 'Kirpan', Inderjit Singh, who was armed with a ' Datar' and others, attacked Nishan Singh and Ranjit Singh. While both the injured were being taken to civil hospital, Gurdaspur, Ranjit Singh succumbed to his injuries on the way. The petitioner had given a 'Gandasi' blow from the reverse side on the right CRM-M 24251 of 2009 -2- elbow of Nishan Singh. The trial is in progress. I do not see any justifiable ground to extend the concession of bail to the petitioner. Dismissed Sd/- March 19,2009 Mohinder Pal Judge” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since 19.3.2009, not a single witness has been examined . In this regard, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the prosecution had moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning of the persons mentioned in Column No.2 of the challan which was declined by the trial Court and against which, a petition bearing CRM No. 24959 of 2008 was filed in this Court in which proceedings before the trial Court were stayed. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the said stay was vacated. Be that as it may, keeping in view the order passed by this Court on 19.3.2009 in CRM 20523 of 2008, I do not find any change in the circumstances for the purpose of granting regular bail to the petitioner. Hence, this petition is hereby dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial. 05.10.2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge