CRM No.M-29598 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-2.12.2010 Udham Singh son of Baaj Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Amandeep Singh Manaise, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, D.A.G., Punjab. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Petitioner Udham Singh son of Baaj Singh, has applied for the grant of regular bail in a case registered against him alongwith his other main co- accused, namely, Harpreet Kaur, vide FIR No.31 dated 3.4.2010 on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 328, 427, 436 and 120-B and subsequently added section 307 IPC, by the police of Police Station Kotkapura, Distt.Faridkot, invoking the provisions of section 439 Cr.PC. 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 help and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this context. 4. Succinctly, the prosecution claimed that on 2.4.2010 Harpreet Kaur, main accused, has administered some poisonous substance in the meals of her family members, in order to kill them. Petitioner was involved in the present case on the basis of statements of PWs Mander Singh and Boota Singh, who were stated to have seen him with Harpreet Kaur after the occurrence. No other overt act or role is attributed to the petitioner. Whether the mere presence of petitioner with main accused Harpreet Kaur, after the occurrence, would attract the penal provisions of the indicated offences, will be the moot point to be decided during CRM No.M-29598 of 2010 2 the course of trial by the trial court. Main accused Harpreet Kaur is in judicial custody. The petitioner was arrested on 22.4.2010 and since then he is in judicial custody. No useful purpose would be served to further detain him in jail. Moreover, there is no history of previous involvement of the petitioner in any other criminal case. The conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time. 5. So, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as narrated 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 present case. 6. 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. 2.12.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge