CRM No.M-34363 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-24.12.2010 Gurmanraj son of Daljit Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Har Naresh Singh Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, D.A.G., Punjab. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Petitioner Gurmanraj son of Daljit Singh, who is stated to be a student of B.Tech., has applied for the grant of regular bail in a case registered against him alongwith his other co-accused, namely, Amrinder Singh and Sandeep Rai alias Ram etc., vide FIR No.18 dated 1.3.2010 on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 308 and 341 read with section 34 IPC by the police of Police Station Sohana, Distt.Mohali, invoking the provisions of section 439 Cr.PC. 2. Succinctly, levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the prosecution that on 28.2.2010, all the accused came in a zypsy to the house of complainant Raghubir Singh. They asked his son Maninder Singh to call Jimmy. On his refusal, the remaining accused caught hold of him, while petitioner Gurmanraj Singh alias Guri gave a cricket bat blow on left side of the head of Maninder Singh. He (Maninder Singh) felled on the ground after the receipt of the injury. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of statement of complainant Raghubir Singh, father of injured Maninder Singh, the present case was registered against the accused, in the manner indicated here-in-above. CRM No.M-34363 of 2010 2 3. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 4. 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 regard. 5. What is not disputed here is that Amrinder Singh, co-accused of the petitioner was granted the concession of regular bail by a Coordinate Bench of this court (Rajan Gupta, J.), vide order dated 26.8.2010 (Annexure P1) passed in CRM No.M-14827 of 2010. Not only that, Sandeep Rai alias Ram, other co-accused of the petitioner, was also allowed regular bail by this Court, vide order dated 24.9.2010 (Annexure P2) passed in CRM No.M-23484 of 2010. 6. Morevover, it is not a matter of dispute that petitioner is a student of B.Tech. He was arrested on 4.3.2010 and since then he is in judicial custody. No useful purpose would be served to further detain him in jail. The incident erupted at the spur of the moment. The conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time. There is no history of previous involvement of the petitioner in any criminal case. 7. So, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial, to me, the present petitioner is entitled to regular bail in the obtaining circumstances of the instant case. 8. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the petition for regular bail is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court. 24.12.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge