CRM No.M-33013 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-22.11.2010 Vipul Sharma son of Rajinder Parshad ...Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.R.S.Rai, Senior Advocate with Mr.Swarn Singh Tiwana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Petitioner Vipul Sharma son of Rajinder Parshad, has applied for grant of regular bail in a case registered against him alongwith his other co- accused, vide FIR No.40 dated 17.3.2010, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 148, 307, 323, 324 and 326 read with section 149 IPC, by the police of Police Station Adampur, 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 respect. 4. Concisely, the prosecution claimed in the FIR that the petitioner caused two injuries to complainant Gurvinder Singh on the upper part of his right arm and left ankle. No doubt, in his supplementary statement, the complainant stated that the petitioner caused him injury on his head as well, but this statement of the complainant was found to be false in the inquiry conducted by SP (D), Jalandhar, wherein he has concluded that the petitioner did not cause any injury to CRM No.M-33013 of 2010 2 him (complainant). 5. Be that as it may, the petitioner was arrested on 21.9.2010 and since then he is in judicial custody. No useful purpose would be served to further detain him in jail. As even challan has not yet been presented, therefore, conclusion of trial would naturally take long time. What is not disputed here is that earlier FIR bearing No.288 dated 8.11.2009 lodged by Bhupinder Singh, grand father of wife of the petitioner on similar allegations, was found to be false by the investigating agency. Under these circumstances, false implication of the petitioner cannot possibly be ruled out at this stage 6. Therefore, taking into consideration the contradiction in the prosecution version and totality of other 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 ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar. 22.11.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge