IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: January 19, 2009 Crl.Misc. No.M-31135 of 2008 Subhash and others ...........Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ..........Respondent Crl.Misc. No. M-32072 of 2008 Sandeep ...........Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ..........Respondent Crl.Misc. No. M-32207 of 2008 Satish ...........Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Jitender Dhanda, Advocate with Mr.Virender Dutt, Advocate for the petitioners. (in Crl.M-31135 of 2008) Mr. Puneet Leekha, Advocate for the petitioner (in Crl.M-32072 of 2008) Mr.Bijender Dhankar, Advocate for the petitioner (in Crl.M-32207 of 2008) Mr. Sidharath Sarup,AAG Haryana Sabina, J. This order shall dispose of the abovementioned three petitions bearing Criminal Misc. Nos.M-31135 of 2008, M-32072 of 2008 and M- 32207 of 2008 as these petitions have arisen out of the same FIR. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 27.7.2008, at about 4.00 P.M., complainant-Ram Kumar, along with his brother-Pawan and uncle Balbir and sons- Charan Singh and Jagjit were attacked by Jagbir Singh Crl.Misc. No.M 31135 of 2008 -2- armed with pistol; Satish armed with sword and Ram Kala and Subhash armed with lathis along with 15 others persons armed with lathis and Dandas. Jagbir Singh fired a shot at the complainant party. Satish Pandit gave a sword blow on the head of Balbir and as a result of this, Balbir fell down. Then, Jagbir fired another shot. Thereafter, Jagbir and his companions inflicted injuries on the person of Charanjit, Jagjit and Pawan with lathis and dandas. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the simple injuries were attributed to the petitioners. Petitioners-Subhash, Raju, Dharambir were in custody since last week of August, 2008,whereas, the petitioners-Sandeep was in custody since the day of occurrence i.e. 27.7.2008 and petitioner-Ram Kala was in custody since 4.10.2008. Bail application filed by the co-accused Amit and Rajinder, who were similarly situated, was allowed by this Court on 3.10.2008 vide CRM No.M-23509 of 2008. Learned counsel for the State has opposed this petition. Keeping in view the above facts, the present petitions deserve to be allowed as the trial is not likely to be concluded at an early date. Accordingly, these petitions are allowed. Petitioners be admitted to bail to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Jind ( Sabina ) Judge January 19, 2009 arya