In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M- 28297 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: November 26, 2011 Baljit Singh @ Jeeta and another ---Petitioners versus State of Punjab ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioners *** Gurdev Singh, J. Crl. Misc. Nos. 57036-37 of 2011 Allowed subject to all just exceptions. Documents mentioned in the application are taken on the record. Crl. Misc. No. M- 28297 of 2011 The petitioners-accused, Baljit Singh alias Jeeta and Manpreet @ Mani, have filed this petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of regular bail for the offences under Sections 307/34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, in respect of which FIR No. 110 dated 9.11.2010 was registered in Police Station, Phagwara, District Kapurthala, and in respect thereof, they are standing their trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala. The said FIR was registered on the basis of the statement of Sukhwinder Singh, in which he narrated that on 4.11.2000, his son Harjot Singh @ Gopi, left the house on the plea that he had received a telephone Crl. Misc. No. M- 28297 of 2011(O&M) -2- call from Mota. On the same day, at about 10-00 p.m., he received a telephone call that the driver, in injured condition, of motor car bearing Registration No. PB-37D-2200, was lying therein, and that the said car was lying parked near the petrol pump of Pundory. Thereafter, he accompanied by Mota Singh, Numberdar, and Harjinder Singh, went to that place, where his son was lying in the car with the injuries on his person. His son, by writing in a copy, disclosed that those injuries were caused to him by Mota and Jeeta. In the course of investigation, statement of Harjot Singh was recorded, in which he got recorded the present petitioners as assailants and that the injuries were caused by these petitioners. It has been submitted by counsel for the petitioners that the complainant and the injured have already been examined during the trial and they have not supported the prosecution case. He has referred to the copies of their statements, placed on the record. This fact has not been denied by the State counsel that the prosecution case in the court has not been supported by the complainant and the injured. A perusal of the statements of the complainant and the injured, copies of which have been placed on the record, shows that they have not named the petitioners as the assailants and they have resiled from their previous statements. The prosecution is not relying on any other evidence against the petitioners. In these circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this petition is hereby accepted. Both the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court. (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE November 26, 2011 PARAMJIT