Criminal Misc. No. M-25182 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 12.10.2009 (1) Criminal Misc. No. M-25182 of 2008 (O&M) Jagdeep Singh .. Petitioner v. State of Punjab .. Respondent (2) Criminal Misc. No. M-28749 of 2008 (O&M) Hari Singh .. Petitioner v. State of Punjab .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. D. S. Pheruman and Mrs. Baljit Kaur Mann, Advocates for the petitioners. Mr. A. S. Brar, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. A. S. Manaise, Advocate for the complainant. .. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of the above-mentioned two petitions bearing Criminal Misc. Nos. M-25182 and M-28749 of 2008, where the prayer made by the petitioners is for grant of regular bail to them pending trial. The petitioners are accused in FIR No. 68 dated 11.5.2006, registered under Sections 302/307/323/324/325/326/148/149 IPC, Police Station, Dina Nagar, District Gurdaspur. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner-Hari Singh is in custody since 11.5.2006, whereas petitioner-Jagdeep Singh is in custody since 16.7.2006. Even after their being in custody for so long, the trial is not proceeding as even a single prosecution witness has not been examined. The result thereof may be that even pending trial, the petitioners may undergo the maximum sentence, which can be awarded without they being involved in the offence at all. It is further submitted that the injuries attributed to petitioner-Hari Criminal Misc. No. M-25182 of 2008 [2] Singh were found to be simple and on non-vital parts, whereas the injuries attributed to petitioner-Jagdeep Singh were also not serious. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that trial was being delayed on account of the fact that one of the co-accused, namely, Satnam Singh, who was in custody, had run away from the custody when he was being produced in the court in connivance with other co-accused. For that FIR was registered against him, other co-accused and the police officials on 8.9.2008. The trial is being delayed only on account of the fact that the petitioners were making applications for further investigation. He further submitted that there are chances of petitioners' tampering with the prosecution evidence as they are regularly threatening the complainant party. The complainant has even filed an application for cancellation of bail granted to one of the co-accused, namely, Balbir Singh. He further submitted that there are total 25 witnesses, out of which 14 are formal witnesses. The case is now fixed for prosecution evidence on 26.10.2009. Some of the prosecution witnesses, who had appeared on the previous date, have been bound down. The trial will not take much time now. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, in my opinion, it would not be appropriate to release the petitioners on bail at this stage, once they are already in custody for the last more than three years. Considering the fact that trial in the present case has been delayed for one reason or the other and now it is ripe for recording of evidence, in my opinion, the ends of justice would be met in case the learned court below is directed to conclude the trial by the end of December, 2009, may be by giving short adjournments. Ordered accordingly. The petitions stand disposed of. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 12.10.2009 mk