Sachin vs State of Punjab

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—As, identical points for consideration to grant regular bail or otherwise to the petitioners are involved, therefore, I propose to decide the indicated petitions bearing CRM No. M-24621 of 2013, titled as Sachin Versus State of Punjab(for brevity "the 1st case") and CRM No. M-25345 of 2013, titled as Harish @ Hira Versus State of Punjab (for short "the 2nd case"), arising out of the same case/FIR, by means of this common order, to avoid the repetition. The petitioners have preferred the instant separate petitions for the grant of regular bail, in a case registered against them along with their other co-accused, vide FIR No. 25 dated 03.02.2013, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 307, 324, 326, 506, 148 and 149 IPC, by the police of Police Station Division No. 5, Jalandhar, invoking the provisions of Section 439 Cr.P.C.

Notices of the petitions were issued to the State.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the present petitions for regular bail deserve to be accepted in this context.

The prosecution claimed that on 03.02.2013, all the accused caused injuries to complainant-Sahil and injured PWs Swaroop Jyoti and Jaskaran Singh, with their respective weapons. No specific injury, role or overt-act is individually attributed to the petitioners. It is not a matter of dispute that, initially the present case was registered against nine accused. During the course of investigation, three accused were found innocent and were exonerated by the police. Taking into consideration the nature and seats of the injuries, as to whether the provision of Section 307 IPC is attracted or not, would be a moot point to be decided during the course of trial by the trial Court.

Moreover, petitioner-Sachin was arrested on 05.02.2013, whereas petitioner-Harish @ Hira was arrested in this case on 11.02.2013. Since then they are in judicial custody and no useful purpose would be served in further detaining them in jail. There is no history of their previous involvement in any other criminal case. Since, even the prosecution has not yet examined a single witness, so, the conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time. In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of 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 trial of main case, the instant petitions for regular bail are hereby accepted. The petitioners are ordered to be released on regular bail on their furnishing adequate bail bonds & surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Needless to mention that, nothing observed here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the case during trial, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petitions for regular bail only.