IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-12599 of 2009 Date of decision : 2.7.2009 Chand Ram and another … Petitioners Versus State of Haryana …Respondents Coram : Hon’ble Mr.Justice Augustine George Masih Present: Mr.Anshumaan Dalal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Gaurav Dhir, AAG, Haryana. Mr.R.K.Dahiya, Advocate for the complainant. Augustine George Masih, J. (Oral) Prayer in the present petition is for grant of regular bail. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners have been alleged to have fired at the complainant with his gun, as per statement of the complainant made in the FIR, but no recovery has been effected from the petitioners of the weapon which is alleged to have been used by him during the firing. He contends that it has not been brought on record that the deceased, Parveen, was shot by the bullet which was not fired from the country made pistol, which was handed over by the complainant and the same is alleged to be belonging to the Parveen himself. He contends that there is no evidence against the petitioners except that they were present at the spot where the firing took place. The enmity between the parties, has also been admitted as alleged in the FIR and contends that not only the petitioners but even the ladies of the household have been involved in the case. Learned State counsel does not dispute the factual position which has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners. However, he submits that charges have been framed on 14.3.2009 and thereafter, the case was fixed for evidence on 27.5.2009 when the adjournment had to be granted on medical certificate being submitted by one Crl.Misc.No.M-12599 of 2009 of the accused. He further submits that case is now fixed for 2.9.2009 for evidence. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that enmity between the parties is writ large and even during investigation and thereafter till the petitioners were not arrested; police protection was provided and there is grave apprehension of danger to the lives of the family members of the complainant. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. In view of the fact that the submission, as has been made by the counsel for the petitioners, which has not been rebutted by the other side, shows that the allegations which have been leveled against the petitioners are debateable and would be considered and proved before the trial court by evidence to be led. The material witness i.e. complainant is yet to be examined. He is a well trained and an able bodied person and is serving in ITBP in Uttarkashi who requires no protection nor can be influenced by the petitioners. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the petitioners are directed to be enlarged on bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Any of the observations made above, shall not be taken as expression of opinion on the merits of the case and shall not be binding upon the trial Court. [ Augustine George Masih ] Judge 02.7.2009 sd 2