CRM No.M-23873 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-29.9.2010 Simrat Pal Singh @ Happy son of Nirbhai Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Ms.Jyoti Choudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Having exercised his right of regular bail and lost in the Court of Session, petitioner Simrat Pal Singh @ Happy son of Nirbhai Singh, has filed the present petition for regular bail in a case registered against him alongwith his other co-accused, namely, Raja Singh, Binder Singh and Dev Singh etc., vide FIR No.159 dated 9.7.2009, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 148, 307, 427 and 506 read with section 149 IPC and section 25 of the Arms Act, by the police of Police Station City Barnala, invoking the provisions of section 439 Cr.PC. 2. Concisely, the prosecution case is that on 9.7.2009 at about 10 P.M., some unknown persons came to the fields in a jeep and started firing upon complainant Karamjit Singh alias Karma and Tejinder Singh with their respective weapons. The bullet was stated to have struck on the arm of injured Tejinder Singh PW. 3. Levelling a variety of allegations, in all, according to the prosecution that the accused came, fired shots and caused injury at the arm of Tejinder Singh PW. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of statement of complainant Karamjit Singh, the present case was registered against some unknown persons, in the manner indicated here-in-above. CRM No.M-23873 of 2010 2 4. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after deep consideration of the matter, to my mind, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this respect. 6. As is evident from the record that the prosecution claimed that all the accused fired shots, which hit at the arm of Tejinder Singh PW. He suffered only single injury, that too on his arm. No specific role or overt act is attributed to the present petitioner Simrat Pal Singh. Even in his statement under section 161 Cr.PC, Tejinder Singh did not attribute any specific role to the petitioner. Whether the penal provisions of section 307 IPC are attracted to the facts of the present case, would be the moot point to be decided by the trial Court. 7. It is not a matter of dispute that the petitioner was arrested on 5.5.2010 and since then he is in judicial custody. His name was not mentioned in the FIR. He is no longer required to be further detained in jail. As only two PWs have been examined by the prosecution, therefore, the conclusion of the trial will naturally take long time. Moreover, there is no history of previous involvement of the petitioner in any criminal case. He is a young man of 25 years of age. 8. Hence, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as described here-in-above, to me, the present petitioner is entitled to regular bail in the obtaining circumstances of the instant case. 9. In the light of the aforesaid reasons 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, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court. 10. The instant petition is disposed of accordingly. 29.9.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge