IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Crl. Misc. No. M- 25152 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: October 5, 2010. Gagandeep Singh ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Punjab ...... RESPONDENT(s) 2. Crl. Misc. No. M- 23855 of 2010(O&M) Sukhwinder Singh ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Punjab ...... RESPONDENT(s) Present: Mr. G.S.Sandhu, Advocate and Mr. N.K.Manchanda, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.D.Sachdeva, Addl.A.G., Punjab. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) This order will dispose of both the aforementioned petitions for regular bail filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR CRM No.M-25152 of 2010 No.17 dated 16.02.2010, under Sections 324/326/427/148/149 IPC, registered at Policie Station Bhadaur, District Barnala. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner- accused, Gagandeep Singh that he has been continuing in custody since 23.07.2010 and that only injury attributed to him is on thumb of the complainant. Further contends that on earlier occasion complainant-Karamjit Singh caused injuries to the petitioner and FIR under Section 307 IPC was lodged against him and that just to pressurize the petitioner, the present FIR has been lodged against him by the complainant. Further contends that offence is triable by Magistrate and that the same is not likely to be concluded in near future as no witness has been examined so far. Further contends that observation of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala in order dated 11.08.2010 that on earlier occasion petitioner has caused injury to complainant for which FIR was registered against him is factually incorrect and that rather FIR was lying registered against the complainant at the instance of petitioner -Sukhwinder Singh. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- accused, Sukhwider Singh that injury attributed to him is on the palm of right hand. It is also contended that false case has been registered against him just to pressurize him as the present petitioner has earlier lodged FIR against the complainant party for offence under Section 307 IPC. Further contends that he has been continuing in custody since 05.07.2010 and that no witness has been examined so far and hence, trial is not likely to be concluded in near future. 2 CRM No.M-25152 of 2010 Learned counsel for the State has not disputed these facts. There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioners are likely to abscond or that they are likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail. Hence, keeping in view these facts and without expressing any opinion on merits, the instant applications for regular bail filed on behalf of Gagandeep Singh and Sukhwinder Singh are allowed. Bail to the satisfaction of CJM/Duty Magistrate, Barnala. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) October 5, 2010. JUDGE 'om' 3