CRM Nos.M-30775 & 31137 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. CRM No.M-30775 of 2010 Dharambir alias Dhola son of Premdin ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent 2. CRM No.M-31137 of 2010 Zile Singh son of Bhale Ram ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent Date of Decision:-6.12.2010 CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.S.P.Tyagi & Mr.U.K.Agnihotri, Advocates for the petitioners. Mr.Tarun Aggarwal, Senior D.A.G. Haryana. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) As identical points for the grant of regular bail are involved, therefore, I propose to decide the above indicated petitions, arising out of the same case/FIR, vide this common order, in order to avoid the repetition of the facts. 2. Petitioners Dharambir alias Dhola son of Premdin and Zile Singh son of Bhale Ram, have filed the aforesaid two separate petitions for regular bail in a case registered against them and their other co-accused, vide FIR No.108 dated 27.4.2010 (Annexure A), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 148, 323, 325, 302 and 506 read with section 149 IPC, by the police of Police Station Rai, District Sonepat invoking the provisions of section 439 Cr.PC. 3. Notices of the petitions were issued to the State. CRM Nos.M-30775 & 31137 of 2010 2 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, these petitions deserve to be accepted in this regard. 5. What is not disputed here is that petitioners Dharambir alias Dhola and Zile Singh did not cause any injury to deceased Ramdhan. They were arrested by the police and were allowed bail by the Magistrate on 30.4.2010. Since Ramdhan succumbed to his injuries, so, they were again arrested by the police on 21.6.2010 and 25.6.2010 respectively and since then, they are in judicial custody. No useful purpose would be served to further detain them in jail. There is no history of previous involvement of the petitioners in any criminal case. As even single witness has not yet been examined by the prosecution, therefore, conclusion of trial will take a long time. 6. Therefore, as mentioned above, the petitioners did not cause any injury to the deceased. Petitioner Dharambir alias Dhola was stated to have caused injury to complainant Krishan, while petitioner Zile Singh caused blunt injury to PW Jagdeep. No other overt act or role is attributed to them. 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 of the case, to me, the present petitioners are entitled to regular bail in the obtaining circumstances of the instant case. 7. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, these petitions for regular bail are allowed and the petitioners are directed to be released on bail on their furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. 8. Needless to state that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petitions. 6.12.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge