CRM No.M-19037 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-4.10.2010 Kapoor Singh s/o Kirpa Shanker ...Petitioner Versus State of U.T.Chandigarh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Balbir Singh Sewak, Advocate for the petitioner. Nemo for the UT Chandigarh. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a copy of order dated 3.5.2010 passed in CRM No.M-6542 of 2010, vide which, Kishan alias Ram Kishan, co-accused of the petitioner, was allowed regular bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Gurdev Singh, J.), which reads as under:- “Heard. Petitioner Kishan @ Ram Kishan, has filed this petition for grant of bail in FIR No.588 dated 26.10.2009 registered under Section 399 of the Indian Penal Code in Police Station Sector 34, Chandigarh. This FIR was registered on the basis of the secret information received by the Officer In charge of the police station that 5/6 boys were making preparation to commit dacoity. Thereafter, raid was conducted and 5/6 boys were apprehended. Two of the boys managed to give slip to the police and their names were ascertained as Kishan @ Ram Kishan and Vicky. As per the Investigating Officer, the present petitioner was arrested subsequently and a sword was recovered from his possession. The alleged recovery has already been effected from him and he is not required for further interrogation. Presentation of the challan and conclusion of the trial will take some time. Keeping in view the above facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the CRM No.M-19037 of 2010 2 case, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Chandigarh.” 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, having gone through the record with his valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this context. 3. It is not a matter of dispute that similar role is attributed to the petitioner, which was assigned to his co-accused Kishan alias Ram Kishan, who has already been allowed bail. Therefore, I see no reason not to extend the same benefit to the present petitioner under the same set of circumstances. He was arrested on 26.10.2009 and since then he is in judicial custody. The learned counsel has stated at the bar that the petitioner is not a previous convict. The conclusion of trial will naturally take long time. Moreover, there is no history of previous involvement of the petitioner in any such case. No useful purpose will be served to further detain him in jail. 4. So, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above, to me, the present petitioner is entitled to regular bail in the obtaining circumstances of the instant case. 5. 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 petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court. 6. The instant petition is disposed of accordingly. 4.10.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge