Crl. Misc. No. M-3094 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-3094 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 15.02.2011 Bahadur Singh ...Petitioner versus The State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. Vijay Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sartaj Singh Gill, D.A.G., Punjab for the respondent-State. **** M ehinder S ingh S ullar, J. (Oral) Having exercised and lost his right of regular bail, petitioner Bahadur Singh son of Santa Singh, has directed the instant petition for the grant of regular bail, in a case registered against him alongwith his other co-accused, namely, Daljit Kaur and Ajit Singh, by virtue of FIR No.89 dated 26.04.2010, for the commission of offences punishable under sections 326, 324, 323, 148 and 149 IPC (and Section 307 IPC was subsequently added), by the police of Police Station Shahkot, District Jalandhar, 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 considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this context. 4. What is not disputed here is that this is a case of cross-versions. Complainant Partap Singh also caused grievous injury to Daljit Kaur co-accused of the petitioner and caused injuries to Ajit Singh as well, other co-accused of the Crl. Misc. No. M-3094 of 2011 (O&M) -2- petitioner. Which of the parties, was the aggressor, would be the moot point to be decided during the course of trial by the trial Court. Moreover, the petitioner was arrested on 29.04.2010 and since then he is in judicial custody. No useful purpose would be served to further detain him in jail. As only one eye witness is stated to have been examined, therefore, conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time. 5. It is also not a matter of dispute that Daljit Kaur and Ajit Singh co-accused of the petitioner have already been allowed concession of anticipatory bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Rajan Gupta, J.), vide orders (Annexures P-6 & P-7) respectively. There is no history of previous involvement of the petitioner in any criminal case. 6. Therefore, 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, to me, the present petitioner is entitled to regular bail in the obtaining circumstances of the instant case. 7. 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. 8. Needless to state that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on the merits of the case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the instant petition. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) Judge February 15, 2011 naresh.k