CRM No.M-28157 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-13.10.2010 Kayub Khan alias Bagla and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Amardeep Singh Gill, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Vikas Malik, A.A.G. Haryana. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Having exercised their right of regular bail and lost in the Court of Sessions Judge, petitioner Kayub Khan alias Bagla son of Julfu, Amardeen son of Lalchi and Bakshi Mohammad son of Gulab, have filed the present petition for regular bail, in a case registered against them, alongwith their other co-accused, vide FIR No.104 dated 16.5.2010 on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 307, 379 and 511 IPC, by the police of Police Station Bhuna, Distt.Fatehabad, invoking the provisions of section 439 Cr.PC. 2. Succinctly, the prosecution claimed that on 16.5.2010, all the accused came to village Bhuna, in order to steal the He-buffalo of the villagers. In the wake of information, the villagers reached the spot. On seeing them, all the accused decamped from the place of occurrence in their Pick-up van. According to the prosecution that the accused tried to steal the He-buffalo and kill the villagers while fleeing away from the spot. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of complaint of complainant Joginder Singh, the present case was registered against the accused, in the manner indicated here-in-above. 3. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this CRM No.M-28157 of 2010 2 context. 5. It is not a matter of dispute that it is no injury case and only allegations are that the driver of the Pick-up van tried to run over the villagers in the process of their escape. As to whether the penal provisions of section 307 IPC are attracted from the facts of the present case, would be the moot point to the decided during the course of trial by the trial Court. 6. Be that as it may, the fact remains is that the petitioners were arrested on 17.5.2010 and since then they are in judicial custody. They are no longer required to be further detained in jail for any purpose. There is no history of previous involvement of the petitioners in any such case. As even the charges have not been framed till today, therefore, the conclusion of trial will naturally take long time. 7. So, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above, to me, the present petitioners are entitled to regular bail on their furnishing bail and surety bonds each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate or in his absence, the Duty Magistrate, Fatehabad. 8. The instant petition is disposed of accordingly. 13.10.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge