CRM No.M-30783 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-18.11.2010 Gurdeep Singh alias Geeta ...Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Raj Kapoor Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Vikas Malik, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Invoking the provisions of section 439 Cr.PC, petitioner Gurdeep Singh alias Geeta son of Major Singh, has applied for regular bail in a case registered against him alongwith his other co-accused, namely, Passi and Pappa, by virtue of FIR No.78 dated 4.6.2010 on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under section 307 read with section 34 IPC, section 25 of the Arms Act and section 3 of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, by the police of Police Station Odhan, District Sirsa. 2. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the matter deeply, to my mind, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this context. 4. What is not disputed here is that prosecution claimed that the petitioner inflicted bullet injury on the left leg of complainant Sita Sigh alias Surjee Singh. He did not repeat the injury. Whether the penal provisions of section 307 IPC are attracted on the facts of the present case, would be the moot point to be decided during the course of trial by the trial Court. CRM No.M-30783 of 2010 2 5. It is not a matter of dispute that Passi and Pappa, co-accused of the petitioner, were found innocent by the investigating agency. Moreover, the petitioner was arrested on 18.6.2010 and since then he is in judicial custody. No useful purpose would be served to further detain him in jail. Since only one PW has been examined by the prosecution, so, conclusion of trial would naturally take long time. There is no history of previous involvement of the petitioner in any criminal case. The learned State counsel, on instructions from HC Subhash Chand, has acknowledged that complainant Surjeet Singh is involved in 5/6 cases. 6. Therefore, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as described here-in-above, to me, the present petitioner is entitled to regular bail in the obtaining circumstances of the instant case. 7. 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. 8. The instant petition is disposed of accordingly. 18.11.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge