CRM-M-27355-2011 [ 1 ] :::::::: IN TH E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-27355-2011 Date of decision:03.10.2011 Baldev Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mrs. G.K.Mann, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. J.S.Brar, AAG, Punjab. ***** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. (Oral) This is a petition for grant of regular bail in a pending trial case registered vide FIR No.16 dated 26.03.2009, under Sections 302, 307, 326, 324, 323, 382, 427, 120-B, 148, 149 of the IPC read with Sections 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not caused any injury to the deceased Avtar Singh and he is in custody since 31.01.2011. She further submits that the role attributed to the petitioner is similar to that of the co-accused Gursharanjit Singh alias Gulshan alias Gusha who had already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 01.09.2011 passed in CRM-M-20419-2011. She further submits that the petitioner is neither a previous convict nor any other case is pending against him, whereas the prosecution has also filed an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is further submitted that the only difference between the case of the petitioner and Gursharanjit Singh alias Gulshan alias Gusha is the length of custody as Gursharanjit Singh alias Gulshan alias Gusha was in custody from April, 2009 and the petitioner is in custody from 31.01.2011. It is also submitted that the petitioner shall appear regularly CRM-M-27355-2011 [ 2 ] :::::::: before the learned Trial Court and for that the learned Trial Court may be directed to impose suitable conditions. Learned State Counsel, on instructions from SI Amarjit Singh, admits that the petitioner is neither a previous convict nor any other case is pending against him. He further admits that the petitioner has not caused any injury to the deceased Avtar Singh, rather the allegation against him is of causing one injury to one injured witness. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, but without making any observation on the merits, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court who is at liberty to impose suitable conditions to ensure regular appearance of the petitioner before it. October 03, 2011 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge