1) Crl. Misc. No.M-2112 of 2011 (O&M) Mohan Singh @ Monu Vs. State of Punjab 2) Crl. Misc. No.M-2215 of 2011 (O&M) Sarwan Singh @ Summy Vs. State of Punjab 3) Crl. Misc. No.M-2718 of 2011 (O&M) Gian Kaur Vs. State of Punjab 4) Crl. Misc. No.M-20468 of 2011 (O&M) Sukhdev Singh @ Sukha and another Vs. State of Punjab Present : Mr. D.S. Pheruman, Advocate for the petitioner. ( CRM-M Nos.2112 & 2215 of 2011) Mr. Hemant Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. ( CRM-M No.2718 of 2011) Mr. G.S. Singhpuria, Advocate for the petitioner. (CRM-M No.20468 of 2011) Mr. S.S. Gill, D.A.G., Punjab. Mr. H.R. Bhardwaj, Advocate for Mr. P.K. Kataria, Advocate for the complainant. ******* AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This order shall disposed of CRM-M Nos.2112, 2215, 2718 and 20468 of 2011. For the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from CRM-M No.2112 of 2011. Crl. Misc. No.M-2112 of 2011 (O&M) -2- This petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioners in case F.I.R. No.17 dated 29.04.2010 registered under Sections 452, 302, 307, 148, 149 IPC at Police Station Cantonment, District Amritsar. On 27.1.2011 the following contention was noticed:- “Learned counsel states that similarly situated co-accused have been granted bail vide Annexure P-6 and that the petitioner has been in custody since April, 2010.” Learned Deputy Advocate General on instructions from S.I. Ashok Kumar has accepted these factual assertions. Learned counsel for the complainant has however argued that the said order was passed in the case of a lady. He has further argued that cross-examination of the complainant has been partly conducted and the matter has now been fixed for 26.07.2011 and it would be appropriate if the case is adjourned beyond that date. In my opinion, as regards the first argument the said order was passed in the month of January. It cannot be lost sight of that since the time Annexure P-6 has passed a period of 6½ months have already been elapsed. Therefore the fact that CRM-M Nos.2215, 20468 and 2718 of 2011 has not been filed by the ladies would not make that much difference due to elapse of time. As regards the second argument, as the complainant being the only eye witness that may have been determining factor, however, there are three more eye witnesses who are yet to be examined. Crl. Misc. No.M-2112 of 2011 (O&M) -3- Keeping in mind the entire conspectus, I deem it appropriate to release the petitioners on regular bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate. Ordered accordingly. Petitions stand disposed of. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected cases. ( AJAY TEWARI ) July 22, 2011 JUDGE ashish